^imw   -"^'-'-^ 


mm: 


I 


'sm: 


w 


Jf 


i:^  oi  Q^  Q^  .^^^  5;:a.  "^:^ 

AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 
SAMtJEL    AGNEW, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 

Q4t 


■  '*-©<s^^9e<:^^e  s<-^^2 


BV  629  .C474  1837  c.2 
Whately,  Richard,  1787-1863 
Christianity  independent  of 
the  civil  government 


y   » 


CHRIST  I  ANITJ^,,„,,.. 


CIVIL    GOVERNMENT. 


NE  W-YORK  : 

HARPER    &    BROTHERS. 


18  37. 


PREFACE 


AMERICAN  EDITION. 


The  accompanying  prefatory  remarks  are  in- 
tended to  introduce  to  the  American  reader  a 
work,  first  published  in  England,  of  much  interest 
and  importance  to  the  statesman  as  well  as  the 
theologian ;  whose  pages  will  be  found  to  contain 
very  valuable  information  on  topics  of  discussion 
connected  with  the  Established  Church^  worthy 
the  attention  of  every  intelligent  man,  and  which, 
with  full  anticipation  and  earnest  confidence  of  a 
favourable  reception,  we  respectfully  recommend 
to  the  notice  and  mature  consideration  of  our 
brethren. 

The  subject  of  Ecclesiastical  Reform  in  the 
Church  of  England  has  long  engaged  the  atten- 
tion and  occupied  the  thoughts  of  very  many  of 
the  best  and  ablest  writers  in  that  country;  and, 
though  a  diversity  of  opinion  may  and  does  exist 
on  this,  as  on  other  points  of  controversy,  we  feel 
assured  that  those  who  read  these  Letters  on  the 


IV  PREFACE. 

Church  will  concede  to  their  author  the  just  and 
deserved  acknowledgment  that  he  has  very  ably 
and  philosophically  executed  the  task  he  has  un- 
dertaken. 

Who  this  individual  is  we  certainly  know  not ; 
he  avows  himself  an  Episcopalian,  and  such  we 
have  reason  to  believe  him  to  be  ;  but  whether  he 
be  an  English  or  an  American  churchman  we  have 
not  the  means  satisfactorily  to  ascertain  ;  his  nation- 
ality, as  well  as  individuality,  or  identity,  is,  in 
our  opinion,  problematical,  and  must  remain  unde- 
termined :  the  contents  of  his  book,  however,  will 
sufficiently  compensate  for  the  deficiency  of  infor- 
mation on  this  head,  and  fully  establish  his  claim 
to  the  reputation  of  a  powerful  and  dispassionate 
writer. 

The  reason,  moreover,  which  has  influenced  us 
to  undertake  the  republication  of  these  letters,  we 
may  further  state  to  be  simply  this  : — 

Much  ignorance,  as  well  as  prejudice,  prevails  in 
our  country  with  regard  to  the  political  and  eccle- 
siastical state  of  affairs  in  England  ;  and  erroneous 
opinions  exist  also  there  respecting  the  system  of 
CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  in  this.  Thcsc  subjccts  are 
well  discussed  and  favourably  considered  in  the 
present  work,  and  the  advantage,  therefore,  may  be 
mutual,  if  these  letters  are  duly  weighed,  and  the 
interests  of  our  holy  religion  are  regarded  as  para- 
mount to  every  other  consideration. 

Though  religious  toleration  is  freely  and  fully 
enjoyed  in  America,  there  are  many  of  our  trans- 


PREFACE.  V 

atlantic  brethren  who  are  totally  in  the  dark  on 
this  subject,  and  know  not  the  nature  of  the  protec- 
tion which  the  state  ought  to  afford  to  religion  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  because  no  religion  is,  or 
rather,  all  religions  are,  equally  recognised  and 
protected  by  the  Constitution,  it  is  no  uncommon 
opinion  that  Americans  are,  consequently,  a  nation 
of  Atheists  and  Infidels;  a  fallacious  and  mis- 
chievous conclusion,  most  powerfully  refuted  by 
our  author  incognito,  whose  views  on  the  volun- 
tary system  of  support  accorded  to  ministers  of 
the  gospel  in  this  country  of  freedom  and  independ- 
ence will  be  found  to  be  no  less  correct  and  satis- 
factory. 

The  plan  which  our  author  has  pursued  in  the 
principal  discussion  of  these  letters  is  this: — 

In  the  first,  on  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
Churches,  he  considers  the  character  of  Christ's 
church  in  general,  and  especially  that  branch  of  it 
of  which  the  English  Episcopalians  prof  ss  to  be 
members;  points  out  the  difference  between  the 
Mosaic  and  the  gospel  dispensations ;  between  the 
two  kingdoms  of  God,  or  churches  established  re- 
spectively among  the  Israelites  and  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  Christ;  from  which  he  comes  to  these  im- 
portant conclusions,  that  the  law  and  the  gospel 
are  completely  contrasted  in  respect  of  the  sanc- 
tions which  support  them,  the  penalties  being  under 
the  one  temporal,  under  the  other  those  of  a  future 
state;  that  the  former  kingdom  of  God  was  of  this 
world,  the  latter  not  of  this  world,  but  spiritual; 


VI  PREFACE. 

that  the  employment  of  secular  coercion  belongs 
to  and  implies  a  government  that  is  of  this  world, 
and,  consequently,  is  (in  matters  pertaining  to 
Christ's  kingdom,  that  is,  in  religious  matters)  in- 
consistent with  the  character  of  the  gospel ;  that 
treason,  sedition,  and  rebellion  against  civil  govern- 
ment may  be,  and  always  might  be,  lawfully  re- 
pressed by  civil  authority  ;  that  religious  ofTences 
are  crimes  of  that  stamp,  under  a  theocracy,  and  a 
theocracy  only  ;  that  God  is,  under  both  systems, 
the  sole  judge  of  such  offences,  on  which  punish- 
ment can  justly  be  inflicted  by  none  but  himself,  or 
persons  expressly  deputed  by  him  to  do  so ;  that 
the  kings  and  other  rulers  were  thus  commissioned 
by  him  under  the  old  dispensation,  whose  penalties 
were  temporal ;  while  under  the  new,  from  the 
nature  of  its  penalties,  no  man  is  or  can  be  com- 
missioned to  inflict  them  ;  and,  lastly,  that  while 
among  the  Israelites,  their  church  and  state  being 
one,  the  rulers  had  necessarily  (as  vicegerents  of 
him  who  was  both  God  and  king)  the  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical authority  combined,  but  that  under  the 
gospel,  on  the  contrary,  all  claims  of  the  church, 
as  a  church,  to  temporal  authority,  or  of  the  state 
to  spiritual,  all  interference  of  the  one  in  civil  and 
of  the  other  in  purely  ecclesiastical  affairs,  is  clearly 
prohibited,  both  by  the  character  of  the  institution 
and  by  the  express  declaration  of  its  Divine  author. 
In  the  second  letter,  on  the  Conduct  of  Chris- 
tians, he  examines  how  far  the  church  of  Christ 
has,  at  various  times,  conformed  to  or  lost  sight  of 


PREFACE.  VU 

these  principles ;  and  deternnines  that,  to  whatever 
church  we  turn  our  attention,  with  a  view  to  this 
point,  whether  we  look  to  its  past  history  or  its 
present  situation,  in  all,  or  nearly  all,  Christians 
have  enacted  and  approved,  if  not  such  laws  as  im- 
ply downright  sanguinary  persecution,  yet  religi- 
ous restriction  and  coercion  of  some  kind  or  other, 
the  enforcement  of  rules  and  infliction  of  civil  pen- 
alties, not  for  the  temporal  peace  and  comfort  of 
society,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the  soul  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  for  the  glory  and  advancement  of  true 
religion. 

The  Authority  of  the  Church  is  the  subject 
of  the  third  letter,  from  whence  the  writer  proceeds, 
in  the  fourth,  to  the  Alliance  of  Church  and 
State,  of  which  he  disapproves,  deeming  it  unjus- 
tifiable, and  coming  to  diflferent  conclusions  from 
those  arrived  at  by  Bishop  Warburton,  who,  as 
well  as  Paley,  has  also  written  upon  this  subject. 
"Let  all  endeavours,"  says  our  author,  "housed, 
indeed,  to  make  every  individual  member  of  the 
church  a  member,  and  a  worthy  member,  of  the 
state  likewise.  Such  an  alliance,  if  it  is  to  be  so 
called,  of  church  and  state,  has  no  warmer  advo- 
cate than  myself;  but  whether  this  be  brought 
about  or  no,  let  the  two  corporate  bodies,  even 
though  composed  of  the  same  materials,  be  kept 
distinct  and  independent.  Let  Christ's  kingdom  be 
zTithis  world,  but  not  of  it." 

On  Religious  Establishments  and  Toleration, 
the  subject  of  ihe  fifth  letter,  our  author's  views  ara 


via  PREFACE. 

very  lucid ;  and  he  avows  that,  notwithstanding 
he  admires  the  excellent  constitution  of  the  civil 
government  of  England,  the  kind  of  alliance  which 
he  so  much  deprecates  he  can  distinctly  prove  to 
be  disadvantageous  to  the  state  as  well  as  the 
church;  and,  consequently,  that  an  alteration  of 
the  system  would  be  beneficial  to  both  parlies. 
And  in  the  last  and  concluding  letter,  the  sixth,  he 
points  out  the  consequences  which  may  be  expected 
to  ensue  from  the  adoption  of  the  measures  he  rec- 
ommends, namely,  the  blessing  of  our  great  Mas- 
ter upon  our  endeavours  to  further  the  proper  ob- 
jects of  his  kingdom  ;  an  increased  purity  in  the 
faith,  the  worship,  and  the  conduct  of  its  members  ; 
the  improvement  of  what  is  good,  and  the  correc- 
tion of  what  is  faulty  ;  and,  lastly,  the  advancement 
of  Protestantism  both  in  England  and  in  Po- 
pish COUNTRIES. 

In  conclusion,  we  would  only  subjoin,  that  we 
cannot  but  entertain  the  confidence  that  these  pages 
will  amply  repay  those  who  shall  bestow  upon 
them  the  labour  of  a  perusal ;  and  express  the  very 
fervent  desire  that  God's  kingdom  may  come,  and 

HIS  WILL  BE  DONE  ON    EARTH  AS    IT  IS  IN  HeaVEN  ; 

in  furtherance  whereof,  and  in  humble  dependance 
upon  whose  blessing,  we  send  forth  the  present 
volume,  praying  that  great  peace  may  rest  on  our 
Zion,  and  upon  all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
in  sincerity  and  truth. 


LETTERS 


THE    CHURCH 


AN    EPISCOPALIAN. 


EXStTO) }]  BADIAEIA  aov.    TevriSriTU)  to  &eh)iia  oov,  wj  ev  ovpav(fi, 
Kai  fin  THS  THS. 


NE  W-YORK: 
REPUBLISHED  BY  HARPER  &  BROTHERS. 

18  37. 


PREFACE. 


The  editor  of  the  following  letters  deems 
it  a  sufficient  apology  for  submitting  them  to 
the  pubHc,  that  they  seem  to  him  to  contain, 
on  the  whole,  just  views  respecting  a  subject 
whose  importance  gives  it  considerable  in- 
terest, though  perhaps  less  than  it  ought  to 
excite ;  and  that  the  reasonings  are,  if  not 
in  themselves,  yet  in  their  combination^  in 
great  measure  original. 

That  the  writer  is  an  Episcopalian,  though 
it  will  appear  in  the  course  of  the  work,  it 
has  been  thought  right  to  state  in  the  title- 
page,  by  way  of  preliminary  notice.  The 
rest  of  his  opinions  the  reader  is  left  to  col- 
lect from  the  letters  themselves.  If  in  any 
point  he  should  be  thought  to  have  ex- 
pressed himself  with  unbecoming  warmth, 
the  cause  which  inspired  him  may  plead  his 
excuse. 

Whether  the  author  be  living  or  dead,  an 


IV  PREFACE. 


eminent  or  an  obscure  individual,  a  native 
of  this  or  of  any  other  country,  are  points 
which  it  cannot  concern  the  pubUc  to  be  in- 
formed of  Anonymous  publication  is  then 
only  censurable  when  facts  that  are  doubt- 
ful are  asserted,  or  the  reputation  of  individ- 
uals compromised.  In  the  present  work  no- 
thing of  the  kind  will  be  found.  The  facts 
referred  to  are  neither  of  a  private  nor  of  a 
doubtful  character;  the  arguments  are  open 
to  every  one's  judgment ;  and  it  is  by  the 
weight  of  reasoning,  not  by  any  appeal  to 
authority,  that  a  question  hke  the  present 
should  be  decided. 


LETTERS  ON  THE  CHURCH, 


LETTER  I. 

ON    THE    JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 


My 


DEAR 


According  to  your  request  when  we  last  parted, 
I  proceed  to  lay  before  you  an  outline  of  the  prin- 
ciples I  maintained,  and  the  arguments  by  which 
I  defended  them,  relative  to  the  momentous  sub- 
ject of  our  discussion,  the  character  of  Christ's 
Church  in  general,  and  the  present  situation  of  that 
branch  of  it  of  which  you  are  a  member.  I  had 
occasion  to  observe  to  you  more  than  once,  in  the 
course  of  our  conversation,  that  the  difference  be- 
tween the  Mosaic  and  the  Gospel  dispensations  ; 
between  the  two  kingdoms  of  God,  or  churches  es- 
tablished respectively  among  the  Israelites  and  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  a  point  to  which  much 
less  attention  is  usually  paid  than  the  importance 
of  the  subject  demands.  And  it  is  remarkable  that, 
as  the  change  from  the  old  to  the  new  dispensation 
was  such  as  to  present  a  stumbling-block  to  the 
greater  part  of  the  Jews,  most  especially  in  so  far 


2  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

as  it  consisted  in  the  substitution  of  the  promises 
of  another  world  for  those  of  this  life,  so  a  miscon- 
ception of  the  nature  of  that  change,  in  respect  of 
that  very  point,  has  given  rise  to  a  train  of  errone- 
ous conclusions  among  Christians.  The  Jews, 
■whose  religion  had  been  established  and  maintained 
by  the  sanction  of  temporal  blessings  and  judgments, 
dispensed  by  a  peculiar  Providence,  and  who  were 
thus  accustomed  to  regard  temporal  deliverance 
and  success  as  the  test  of  Divine  favour  (even  after 
they  had  superadded  the  belief  in  a  future  state), 
naturally  looked  for  a  victorious  and  prosperous 
prince  in  the  Messiah,  and  were  scandalized  at  be- 
ing called  on  to  acknowledge,  in  that  character,  a 
person  who  passed  his  life  in  humiliation  and  afflic- 
tion, and  ended  it  by  an  ignominious  and  "  accur- 
sed" death.  The  prejudice  thus  arising  was  one 
which  called  for  the  greatest  exercise  of  candour 
and  patience  in  inquiry  to  overcome  it ;  and  even 
those  passages  in  the  prophets  which  were  calcu- 
lated to  cure  that  prejudice  seem  to  have  pointed 
to  and  foretold  it ;  to  have  foretold,  I  mean,  not 
only  that  the  chosen  servant  of  God  was  destined 
to  be  a  sufferer,  but  also  that  those  his  sufferings 
"would  be  interpreted  as  a  mark  of  the  Divine  dis- 
favour :  "  We  did  esteem  Him  stricken,  smitten  of 
God,  and  afflicted  ;  and  we  hid,  as  it  were,  our 
faces  from  Him."  I  am  not,  of  course,  seeking  to 
vindicate  the  Jews  in  their  rejection  of  the  Christ ; 
yet  I  cannot  but  think  that  the  mistake  under  which 
they  laboured  was  less  to  be  wondered  at,  in  the 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  3 

first  instance,  at  least,  considering  that  they  were 
familiar  with  the  first  dispensation,  when  the  other 
was  altogether  a  novelty  to  them,  than  the  error  of 
those  Christians  who,  while  they  acknowledge  the 
Divine  authority  of  both  dispensations,  and  have 
the  opportunity  of  studying,  leisurely  and  calmly, 
the  whole  scheme  of  Providence  as  developed 
gradually  in  the  entire  Bible,  yet  confound  together, 
in  many  points,  the  two  plainly  distinct  parts  of 
that  scheme  ;  transferring,  in  the  notions  they  form, 
several  circumstances  interchangeably  from  the 
gospel  to  the  law  and  from  the  law  to  the  gospel ; 
and,  in  particular,  overlooking,  in  great  measure, 
the  distinction  just  mentioned  between  the  ancient 
and  now  existing  kingdom  of  the  Most  High. 

Jesus  himself  expressly  declared  that  his  "king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world  ;"  assigning,  as  a  natural 
consequence  and  proof  of  this,  that  his  servants  did 
not  fight  to  save  him  from  being  delivered  to  the 
Jews.  He  did  not  evidently  intend  to  imply  that 
he  had  no  kingdom  in  this  world,  and  that  his  do- 
minion existed  only  in  reference  to  the  glorified 
saints  and  angels  in  heaven  ;  for  in  saying  that  his 
servants  did  not  fight  for  him,  he  implied  that  he 
had  servants  on  earth,  who,  of  course,  were,  and 
might  be  called  by  an  equivalent  expression  (inas- 
much as  he  proclaimed  his  own  regal  dignity),  sub- 
jects of  his  kingdom.  Nor  did  he  mean,  as  some 
well-intentioned  Christians  have  imagined,  to  pro- 
hibit self  defence  against  robbers  or  hostile  inva- 
ders ;  but  that  he  forbade  his  followers  to  fight/or 


4  JEWISH  AND  CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

him ;  to  support  by  force  the  cause  of  his  kingdom ; 
to  have  recourse  to  arms  for  the  maintenance  of 
his  authority  and  the  defence  of  his  religion.  "  If 
my  kingdom,"  said  he,  "  were  of  this  world,  then 
would  my  servants  j^^A/,  that  I  should  not  he  deliv- 
ered to  the  Jews :  but  now  is  my  kingdom  not  from 
hence."  It  is  plam,  therefore,  that  the  kingdom 
which  he  claimed,  and  in  which  he  gave  authority 
under  himself  to  his  apostles,  saying,  "  I  appoint 
unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath  appointed 
unto  me,"  was  a  kingdom  existing,  indeed,  in  this 
world,  but  not  of  this  world  ;  that  is,  having  refer- 
ence to  the  next  world  ;  sanctioned  by  the  rewards 
and  punishments  of  a  future  state  ;  maintained  by 
no  secular  means  of  coercion  ;  neither  superseding 
nor  combined  with,  nor  in  any  way  interfering  with 
civil  government.  And  not  only  did  he  make  this 
declaration  before  Pilate;  not  only  did  he  withdraw 
from  the  multitudes  who  were  seeking  to  "  take 
him  by  force  to  make  him  a  king,"  that  is,  to  in- 
vest him  with  temporal  royalty  ;  but  he  refused  to 
interfere,  when  applied  to,  even  in  the  most  minute 
transaction  that  related  to  civil  rights,  on  the 
ground,  not  that  it  was  beneath  his  notice,  but  that 
he  had  no  rightful  authority  in  such  cases.  When 
one  came  to  him  saying,  "  Master,  speak  to  my 
brother,  that  he  divide  the  inheritance  with  me," 
his  reply  was,  ♦'  Who  made  me  a  judge  or  a  divider 
over  you  ?" 

The  kingdom  of  God,  on  the  other  hand,  which 
was  established  among  the  Israelites  of  old,  was 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  5 

*  of  this  world.'*  It  was  the  very  reverse  of  that 
spiritual  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  just  mentioned 
in  every  point,  except  that  of  their  being  both  un- 
der the  especial  government  of  God.  But  in  the 
former  dispensation  that  government  and  protec- 
tion were  of  a  temporal  character.  The  Lord 
Jehovah  was  the  King  or  supreme  Magistrate,  as 
well  as  the  God,  of  that  particular  nation  ;  taking 
upon  himself  the  administration  of  their  affairs, 
and  not  only  laying  down  the  system  of  civil  policy 
they  were  required  to  observe,  but  continually  en- 
forcing compliance  wit-h  it  by  immediate  temporal 
rewards  and  punishments,  either  distributed  by 
himself  directly,  or  by  judges  and  kings  whom  he 
appointed  and  controlled.  For  this  theocracy  by 
no  means  came  to  an  end,  as  some  have  supposed, 
at  the  period  of  the  appointment  of  the  kings, 
though  the  administration  of  it  was  relaxed,  after 
the  captivity,  by  the  gradual  cessation  of  the  ex- 
traordinary providence.  The  application  of  the 
title  of  King,  first  to  Jehovah  himself,  and  after- 
ward to  those  human  rulers  who  reigned  over  Ju- 
dah  and  over  the  ten  tribes,  has  probably  led  to 
the  mistake  alluded  to ;  that  of  supposing  that  Saul, 
and,  after  him,  David,  succeeded  to  the  whole  of 
that  temporal  authority  which,  under  the  same  title, 
had  been  exercised  by  the  Lord.  But  the  history 
proves  that  this  was  by  no  means  the  case ;  for  it 
is  plain  that  the  kings  not  only  were  appointed  and 
deposed  by  him,  but  also  were  required  to  conform 
to  his  directions,  from  time  to  time,  as  his  deputies 
a2 


6  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

and  vicegerents ;  and  if  they  displayed  these,  were 
punished  either  in  their  own  persons  or  in  those  of 
their  children.  The  commission  given  to  King 
Saul  respecting  the  expedition  against  the  Amale- 
kites,  and  the  judgment  pronounced  and  executed 
upon  him  for  not  precisely  complying  with  the  di- 
rections given  him,  may  be  cited  as  one  instance, 
out  of  many,  illustrative  of  what  has  been  said. 
Now  the  person  who,  under  whatever  title,  exer- 
cises supreme  control  over  any  nation  in  respect  of 
all  their  transactions,  and  enforces  his  enactments 
by  direct  temporal  penalties,  is  evidently  the  su- 
preme civil  governor  of  that  nation. 

An  attentive  consideration,  in  all  its  bearings,  of 
the  peculiar  and  extraordinary  providence  by  which 
the  Lord  thus  governed  the  Israelites,  is  sufficient 
to  explain  many  difficulties  and  remove  many  er- 
rors relating  to  the  Old  Testament  history  ;  which, 
have  affi^rded  matter  of  cavil  for  infidels,  and  have 
perplexed  the  views  of  ignorant  or  inconsiderate 
Christians. 

One  of  what  may  be  denominated  the  vulgar  er- 
rors that  are  afloat  on  this  subject  is,  that  the  Israel- 
ites had,  or  pretended  to,  a  Divine  right  to  wage 
war  against  idolaters.  They  never  had,  nor  pro- 
fessed to  have,  any  such  commission  or  right. 
Their  being  expressly  sent  against  certain  nations 
of  idolaters,  dwelling  in  one  particular  country, 
might  alone  be  regarded,  according  to  the  maxim 
that  "  an  exception  proves  a  rule,"  as  a  sufficient 
indication  that  they  had  no  general  commission  to» 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  7 

wage  religious  wars.  But  a  more  decisive  proof 
of  what  I  have  said  is  furnished  by  the  express 
prohibition  to  make  war  on  the  Edomites,  who  re- 
fused them  passage  through  their  territory,  and 
who,  of  course,  were  idolaters  as  well  as  all  the 
other  Gentiles.  Nor  were  the  Israelites  authorized 
or  permitted  to  take  possession  of  any  country 
which  they  might  prefer  and  might  be  able  to  sub- 
due. The  precise  district  in  which  they  were  to 
settle  was  distinctly  pointed  out ;  and  it  was  one 
which  was  so  far  from  being  the  object  of  their 
choice,  that  their  cowardice  and  distrust  of  Divine 
protection  led  them  to  manifest  the  utmost  reluc- 
tance to  enter  upon  it.  And  when  the  whole  gen- 
eration which  had  thus  tempted  God  were  wasted 
in  their  long  wanderings  in  the  wilderness  and 
become  extinct,  their  children  were  summoned  to 
take  possession  of  the  very  same  territory. 

Their  claim  to  this  territory  was  founded,  not, 
according  to  the  fanciful  notion  first  broached,  I 
believe,  by  Michaelis,  on  a  right  of  inheritance 
from  Abraham,  who  possessed  none  of  it,  "  no,  not 
so  much  as  to  set  his  foot  on"  (except  the  burial- 
place  which  he  purchased  from  the  people  of  the 
land),  but  on  the  best  possible  title,  that  of  a  gift 
from  Him  who  made  the  whole  earth  and  all  its  in- 
habitants, and  who  has  surely  an  indisputable  right 
to  the  disposal  of  any  part  of  it. 

As  for  the  utter  extirpation  to  which  the  Canaan- 
ites  were  doomed,  the  difficulty  which  that  may 
present  is  one  which  does  not  peculiarly  affect  the 


8  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

Bible  history.  An  earthquake,  an  inundation,  or  a 
pestilence  are  as  frightfully  indiscriminate  in  their 
destruction  as  the  swords  of  the  children  of  Israel: 
and  such  visitations  have  often  befallen  nations  ap- 
parently less  proper  subjects  for  such  tremendous 
judgments  than  the  detestably  idolatrous  Canaan- 
ites,  whose  foul  and  bloody  abominations  were 
sanctified,  and  consecrated,  and  enforced  by  their 
false  religion.  It  should  be  remembered,  too,  that 
while  such  natural  visitations  as  I  have  alluded  to 
have  often  cut  off  those  who  had  no  warning 
which  could  enable  them  to  escape,  the  nations  of 
Canaan,  on  the  other  hand,  were  at  full  liberty,  not 
indeed  to  obtain  peace  by  timely  submission,  but,  to 
fly  their  country,  and  seek  a  settlement  (as  it  is 
supposed  some  of  them  did)  in  other  regions,  into 
which  the  Israelites  had  no  commission  to  pursue 
them.  And  they  had  no  less  than  forty  years'  no- 
tice that  the  chosen  people  of  the  Almighty  were 
coming  against  their  land,  supported  by  such  mi- 
raculous aid  as  must  make  resistance  hopeless. 
That  they  could  not  be  ignorant  of  this,  we  might 
fairly  conclude  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
even  if  we  did  not  find,  in  the  history,  an  express 
assurance  to  the  same  effect  in  the  words  of  Rahab 
to  the  spies. 

The  cause  of  the  Israelites  being  sentenced,  if  I 
may  so  express  myself,  to  be  the  executioners  of 
the  severe  decree,  was,  doubtless,  that  a  gross- 
minded  unthinking  people,  such  as  they,  could  not 
in  any  other  way  have  been  inspired  with  so  strong 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  9 

an  abhorrence  of  idolatry,  or  so  lively  an  apprehen- 
sion of  the  Divine  judgments  denounced  against  it, 
as  by  being  engaged  in  unsparing  hostility  against 
those  who  were  cut  off  for  that  sin,  and  being  com- 
pelled to  inflict,  with  their  own  hands,  the  heavy 
punishment  which,  they  were  all  along  assured, 
awaited  themselves,  should  they  fall  into  a  similar 
transgression  ;  being  continually  reminded  that  it 
was  not  for  their  own  righteousness,  but  for  the 
wickedness  of  those  nations,  that  the  Lord  drove 
them  out ;  and  being  charged  not  to  do  any  of 
those  abominations,  "  that  the  land  spew  you  not  out, 
as  it  spewed  out  the  inhabitants  thereof."  But,  as  I 
have  before  said,  the  Israelites  themselves  were 
not  left  to  exercise  their  own  discretion  respecting 
the  ill-desert  of  any  of  their  idolatrous  neighbours, 
nor  authorized,  generally,  to  put  down  false  reli- 
gions, and  seize  on  the  property  of  such  as  pro- 
fessed them  ;  but  received  an  express  and  distinct 
commission  against  certain  particular  nations,  and 
had  the  boundaries  of  the  land  they  were  to  occu- 
py precisely  marked  out.  Those,  therefore,  who 
have  appealed  to,  and  who  have  objected  to,  the 
Mosaic  law,  as  authorizing,  in  Christian  nations, 
w^ars  for  the  propagation  of  the  true  faith,  or  for 
the  chastisement  of  heretics,  must  be  either  miser- 
ably ignorant  of  the  Scriptures  or  grossly  uncan- 
did  in  the  representation  they  give  of  them. 

The  temporal  punishment  of  those  among  the 
Israelites  themselves  who  were  guilty  of  idolatry, 
blasphemy,  or  contumacious  disobedience  to  the 


10  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN   CHURCHES. 

ordinances  of  their  religion,  is  another  circumstance 
connected  with  the  system  of  secular  government 
by  the  Lord,  sanctioned  by  the  rewards  and  pen- 
alties of  this  life  ;  and  it  is  one  respecting  which 
many  persons  entertain  such  indistinct  and  con- 
fused notions  as  have  given  occasion  to  infidel  ob- 
jections on  the  one  hand,  and  to  corruptions  of 
Christianity  on  the  other.  In  a  nation  whose  su- 
preme civil  magistrate  is  God  himself,  it  is  plain, 
as  Warburton  and  others  before  him  have  remarked, 
that  the  worship  of  false  gods  is  high  treason  ;  blas- 
phemy, sedition,  and  violation  of  religious  ordin- 
ances, rebellion  against  the  lawful  ruler.  To  wor- 
ship Baal  and  other  heathen  deities,  either  to  the 
exclusion  of  Jehovah,  or  conjointly  with  him,  who, 
being  **  a  jealous  God,"  would  allow  of  no  divided 
worship,  was  not  merely  a  religious  oflfence,  but 
was  also  a  transfer,  total  or  partial,  of  their  alle- 
giance from  the  rightful  absolute  sovereign  of  their 
own  state  to  a  stranger  :  an  offence  which  all  gov- 
ernments have,  naturally  and  fairly,  made  capital. 
So,  also,  to  blaspheme  Jehovah,  and  to  disobey 
his  positive  ordinances,  were,  under  that  system, 
crimes  against  the  state  ;  as  being  manifestly  vio- 
lations of  that  duty  which  all  subjects  owe  to  the 
supreme  civil  magistrate.  In  short,  the  state  it- 
self and  the  church,  the  civil  government  and  the 
ecclesiastical,  were,  by  the  very  character  of  a 
theocracy,  completely  blended  together  and  com- 
bined into  one. 

There  was  no  alliance  between  the  church  and 


JEWISH   AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  H 

State  ;  but  they  were,  by  the  nature  of  the  case, 
one  and  the  same  thing.  There  was  not,  nor  could 
be,  among  the  Israelites,  any  such  distinction  as 
that  between  political  and  religious  duties  or  of- 
fences ;  the  very  ground  of  that  distinction  being, 
that  the  one  has  reference  to  the  civil  magistrate, 
and  the  other  to  the  Deity  ;  and  Jehovah  being,  in 
relation  to  that  particular  people,  both  the  one  and 
the  other;  their  king  as  well  as  their  God.  Obe- 
dience to  him,  therefore,  comprised,  directly  and 
immediately,  the  whole  of  their  duty  ;  and  Josephus 
accordingly  remarks,  that  among  the  Jews  reli- 
gion was  not,  as  in  other  nations,  considered  as  a 
part  of  virtue ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  virtue  as  a 
part  of  religion.  This,  indeed,  it  may  be  said, 
ought  to  be  the  case  with  Christians  also ;  who  are 
required  to  be  influenced  in  all  their  conduct,  not 
by  the  fear  of  human  punishments,  but  by  a  con- 
scientious regard  to  the  will  of  God  ;  and  to  do 
everything  "  as  unto  the  Lord,  and  not  unto  man." 
But  there  is  this  difference,  that  temporal  penalties, 
which,  in  the  present  day,  are  left  in  the  hands  of 
human  rulers  (the  extraordinary  and  miraculous 
Providence  which  accompanied  the  old  dispensation 
being  withdrawn),  were  those  which  consituted  the 
sole  sanction  of  the  law  of  Moses.  No  punishments 
in  another  world  were  by  that  law  denounced  to  en- 
force the  observance  of  it :  so  that  if  a  certain  class 
of  oflfences  against  it  could  have  been  distinguished 
from  the  rest  as  of  an  exclusively  religious,  and  not 
of  a  political  character,  and   had   been  on  that 


12  JEWISH   AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

ground  exempted  from  temporal  penalties,  the  en- 
actments respecting  them  would  have  been  nuga- 
tory, since  there  were  no  other  penalties  ;  and  the 
Israelites  would  have  been  left,  in  fact,  without  any 
religion  at  all.  But,  in  reality,  it  is,  as  I  have  just 
observed,  absolutely  impossible  to  draw  any  such 
distinction  under  a  system  in  which  God  takes 
upon  himself  the  office  of  civil  governor  ;  an  office 
which,  by  the  very  definition  of  it,  is  exercised  by 
that  person,  and  that  person  only,  who  regulates 
the  temporal  affairs  of  any  people,  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  temporal  punishments. 

These  considerations,  obvious  as  they  are,  and 
not  pretending  to  any  novelty,  are  yet  such  as  can 
hardly  have  entered  the  mind  of  many  persons, 
both  among  the  enemies  and  the  supporters  of  the 
Christian  religion  ;  else  we  should  hardly  find  the 
one  declaiming  so  triumphantly  against  the  big- 
oted, intolerant,  cruel,  and  persecuting  spirit  of  the 
Mosaic  system,  on  the  ground,  in  reality,  of  its 
containing,  what  is  an  essential  part  of  every  other 
system  of  government  that  ever  did  or  can  exist, 
viz.,  penalties  against  treason,  rebellion,  and  sedi- 
tion. Nor  should  we  find  Christians  so  often  jus- 
tifying coercion  in  religious  matters  by  the  ex- 
ample, totally  inapplicable  to  any  other  case,  of 
what  took  place  among  the  Israelites ;  nor  should 
we  find  others,  again,  who,  having  imbibed  enough 
of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  to  perceive  that  it  abhors 
everything  of  the  nature  of  persecution,  are  mani- 
festly at  a  loss  to  reconcile  the  two  systems,  and 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  13 

make  a  kind  of  apology  for  the  punishment  of  reli- 
gious offenders  by  the  civil  sword  among  the  Is- 
raelites ;  as  if  it  were  a  kind  of  "  concessum  prop- 
ter duritiem  cordis,"  an  indulgence  granted  to  the 
narrow  prejudices  of  their  judges  and  kings ;  ap- 
plauding, at  the  same  time,  the  superior  excellence 
and  the  mild  and  forgiving  spirit  of  the  gospel ; 
considerations  which,  however  just  and  important 
in  themselves,  are  nothing  to  the  purpose.  For 
example,  you  may  find,  in  examining  the  commen- 
tators on  that  passage  in  St.  Luke  where  the  dis- 
ciples purpose  to  call  down  fire  from  heaven  on 
the  Samaritans  who  had  refused  to  receive  Jesus, 
and  are  rebuked  by  him  as  "  not  knowing  what 
manner  of  spirit  they  are  of,  the  Son  of  Man  hav- 
ing come  not  to  destroy  men's  lives,  but  to  save," 
that  Tillotson's  paraphrase  is,  "  consider  what 
spirit  now  actuates  and  governs  you ;  not  that, 
surely,  to  which  my  doctrines  design  to  mould  and 
fashion  you ;  which  is  not  a  furious,  persecuting, 
and  destructive  spirit,  but  mild,  gentle,  and  saving ; 

Ye  are  not  now  under  the  hard  and  severe 

dispensation  of  the  law,  but  the  calm  and  peaceable 
institution  of  the  gospel,"  &c.,  &c. ;  and  Dean 
Stanhope  remarks  on  the  passage,  that  "  as  the 
gospel  is  a  dispensation  of  compassion  and  love, 
an  institution  of  good  to  mankind  in  all  their  in- 
terests and  capacities,  to  promote  this  gospel  by 
methods  of  rigour  and  revenge  would  be  to  em- 
ploy means  most  unsuited  to  the  end,"  &c.,  &c. 
Now  these  worthy  divines  are  certainly  right  m 


14  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

supposing  that  Jesus  found  fault  with  his  disciples 
for  not  understanding  the  difference  between  the 
old  and  the  new  dispensations ;  but  it  seems  very 
doubtful  whether  they  themselves  understood  it  any 
better  ;  for  one  would  think  they  had  forgotten 
that  the  same  God  was  the  author  of  each  institu- 
tion ;  either  of  which  it  is  somewhat  rash  to  call 
"  hard  and  severe  ;"  or  that  they  imagined  the  Al- 
mighty had  become  more  indifferent  than  formerly 
as  to  the  reception  his  messengers  met  with.  In 
truth,  the  rebuke  was  not  at  all  directed  against  an 
unforgiving  temper  in  James  and  John  ;  since  we 
are  only  required  to  "  forgive  them  that  trespass 
against  ?^5,"  not  against  any  other  person;  and  the 
offence  of  the  Samaritans  having  been  committed, 
not  against  them,  but  against  their  Master,  was  not 
consequently  one  which  they  had  any  right  to  for- 
give. It  has  always  appeared  to  me  that  such 
observations  as  those  just  cited  are  entirely  irrele- 
vant, and  that  the  whole  interpretation  turns  on 
the  change  from  the  system  of  temporal  rewards 
and  judgments  to  that  of  eternal  ones  hereafter, 
"which  formed  the  sanction  of  the  gospel.  In  the 
very  next  chapter  of  St.  Luke  you  find  Jesus,  in 
his  charge  to  the  disciples  whom  he  sent  out  to 
preach,  telling  them  **into  whatsoever  city  ye 
enter,  and  they  receive  you  not,  go  your  ways  out 
into  the  streets  of  the  same,  and  say,  Even  the 
very  dust  of  your  city  which  cleaveth  to  us  we 
do  wipe  off  against  you ;  notwithstanding,  be  ye 
sure  of  this,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  15 

unto  you.  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  it  shall  be 
more  tolerable  in  that  day  for  Sodom  than  for  that 
city.  Wo  unto  thee,  Chorazin !  Wo  unto  thee, 
Bethsaida  !"  &c.  Now  we  know  that  on  Sodom 
Jire  did  come  down  from  heaven  and  destroy  it  ;  yet 
a  heavier  judgment  than  this  was,  it  seems,  incurred 
by  those  cities  which  should  reject  Christ  or  his 
ministers.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  understand  how  any 
one  that  has  but  read  the  above  passage  can  de- 
scribe the  change,  which,  in  fact,  consisted  in  the 
substitution  of  eternal  for  temporal  penalties,  as  a 
change  from  a  "  hard  and  severe  dispensation"  to 
one  of  a  milder  character.  The  fact  is,  God  was, 
and  is,  the  judge,  and  the  only  rightful  judge,  of 
religious  offences,  under  both  dispensations ;  and 
the  Scripture  gives  us  no  reason  to  expect  that  he 
will,  in  the  one  case  more  than  in  the  other,  over- 
look contumacious  disobedience  ;  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, that  those  will  suffer  for  it  the  more  severely 
who  have  been  favoured  with  a  greater  degree  of 
illumination  and  with  offers  of  a  more  glorious  re- 
ward. "  He  that  despised  Moses'  law  died  with- 
out mercy,  under  two  or  three  witnesses  :  of  how 
much  sorter  punishmentf  suppose  ye,  shall  he.  be 
thought  worthy  who  hath  trodden  under  foot  the 
Son  of  God?" 

But  while  under  the  Mosaic  law  the  temporal 
penalties,  which  were  the  only  ones  denounced, 
were  frequently,  by  Divine  appointment,  inflicted 
by  the  hand  of  man,  under  the  gospel,  on  the  con- 
trary, since  its  penalties,  which  are   exclusively 


16  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

those  of  the  next  world,  cannot,  from  their  nature, 
be  inflicted  by  man,  we  are  accordingly  required 
,  to  abstain  from  all  violent  and  coercive  mearures 
in  the  propagation  and  maintenance  of  the  faith. 

The  few  instances  which  took  place  at  the  open- 
ing of  the  gospel  dispensation  of  extraordinary 
temporal  judgments,  by  which  the  divine  origin  of 
the  religion  was  vindicated,  and  which  were  in- 
flicted through  the  instrumentality  of  human  agents 
miraculously  empowered  to  call  them  down,  such 
as  the  death  of  Ananias  and  his  wife,  and  the  judg- 
ment on  Elymas  the  sorcerer;  these,  I  say,  are  of 
such  a  character,  and  also  so  few  in  number,  that 
instead  of  invalidating  what  has  been  said,  they 
serve  rather  to  put  it  in  a  more  striking  point  of 
view,  by  the  contrast  they  present  to  the  general 
character  of  the  gospel  system  :  a  system  whose 
Author  voluntarily  submitted  to  every  sort  of  in- 
dignity and  cruelty  ;  to  an  unjust  sentence  and  an 
ignominious  death  ;  and  prepared  his  followers, 
not  without  need,  to  endure,  unresistingly,  stripes, 
and  imprisonments,  and  every  kind  of  persecution, 
and  a  violent  death  ;  following  the  example  of  their 
Master,  who  ''did  no  violence,"  "who,  when  he 
was  reviled,  reviled  not  again  ;  when  he  suffered, 
he  threatened  not;  but  submitted  himself  to  Him 
that  judgeth  righteously."  The  disciples  of  such  a 
Master  might  well  be  exhorted  to  "glory"  and 
think  themselves  "  blessed"  in  suffering  persecution 
and  calumny  for  his  name's  sake.  With  what  con- 
sistency any  of  them  can  employ  coercion  in  reli- 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  17 

gious  matters,  or  inflict  civil  penalties  on  religious 
offenders,  let  those  who  do  so  explain  as  they  can. 
Such  conduct  has  usually  been  justified  on  the 
authority  of  Scripture  by  those  who  choose  to  re- 
gard Scripture  as  one  code  of  laws,  and  appeal  to 
the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  as  if  it  were  not 
many  books,  but  a  single  one,  from  any  part  of 
which  they  might  select,  from  time  to  time,  what- 
ever might  tally  with  their  own  inclinations  and 
justify  their  own  practices.  And  when  it  is  con- 
sidered that  the  sacred  books  which  we  denomi- 
nate, collectively,  the  Bible,  contain  the  history  and 
ordinances  of  two,  connected  indeed,  but  distinct, 
dispensations,  which,  though  they  correspond  in 
most  points,  agree  in  very  few,  it  is  evident  that 
he  who  confusedly  blends  the  two  systems  together, 
and  applies  to  his  own  case  whatever  parts  of  each 
may  suit  his  purpose,  will  be  just  as  likely  to  mis- 
lead or  to  be  misled,  as  if  the  authority  he  appealed 
to  were  false.  For  it  is  evident  that  the  Bible,  by 
this  mode  of  consulting  it,  may  be  made  to  say  any- 
thing whatever.  But  those  who  keep  in  mind  to 
whom,  and  under  what  circumstances  each  pre- 
cept was  delivered,  will  find  that  there  is  not  the 
smallest  inconsistency  between  them.  The  pro- 
hibition by  Jesus  of  the  employment  of  any  vio- 
lence in  his  cause,  his  refusal  to  interfere  in  secular 
matters,  and  his  declaration  that  his  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world,  are  indeed  utterly  at  variance  with 
the  employment  of  coercion  in  religious  matters  by 
Christians,  with  any  appeal  to  civil  authority  to  en- 
b2 


18  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

force  the  doctrines  or  duties  of  the  gospel ;  but  no- 
thing that  he  said  or  did  was  at  all  at  variance  with 
the  Divine  command  given  to  the  Israelites  to  put 
to  death  without  mercy  the  idolater  and  the  blas- 
phemer ;  since  he  neither  denied  nor  annulled  the 
right  of  all  governments  to  punish  by  the  civil 
sword  traitors  and  rebels,  which  idolaters  and  blas- 
phemers evidently  were  under  the  theocracy. 
That  Christ's  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,  is  no- 
thing inconsistent  with  the  existence  of  a  former 
kingdom  of  God  which  was  of  this  world  ;  nor 
with  the  justice  of  such  regulations  in  that  as  are 
common  to  all  temporal  kingdoms  whatever. 

But  religion  would  be  very  unlike  all  other  gifts 
of  God  to  man  if  it  were  not  liable  to  multifarious 
abuses,  perversions,  and  corruptions.  And  accord- 
ingly, besides  all  the  misinterpretations  and  misap- 
plications which  have  been  made  of  single  texts  of 
Scripture  by  the  perversity  of  man  or  of  Satan 
(Matt.,  iv.,  0,  and  Luke,  iv.,  9,  10,  11),  entire  por- 
tions also  of  the  sacred  writings  have  been  made 
to  serve  various  bad  purposes,  by  separating  them 
from  those  with  which  they  ought  to  be  combined, 
and  uniting  them  with  those  from  which  they  ought 
to  be  kept  distinct.  And  this  is  particularly  ex- 
emplified in  those  transfers  which  I  have  already- 
mentioned,  as  having  been  so  often  unjustifiably 
made,  of  portions  of  the  law  and  of  the  gospel, 
interchangeably.  The  Jewish  kings,  being  God's 
deputies  and  vicegerents  under  a  theocracy,  were, 
of  consequence,  invested  with  authority  over  the 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  19 

Jewish  church,  as  a  church  ;  in  other  words,  with 
ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  authority  :  because, 
being  deputies  and  representatives  of  Him  who 
was  at  once  both  the  spiritual  and  the  secular  sov- 
ereign of  that  nation,  their  jurisdiction  must  have 
been  coextensive  wilh  his,  except  in  so  far  as  he 
might  think  fit  to  limit  it ;  and  he  was  so  far  from 
restricting  them  from  exercising  control  (in  subor- 
dination to  his  supreme  authority)  in  religious  mat- 
ters, that  it  is  plain  he  even  absolutely  exacted  of 
all  the  rulers,  whether  called  judges  or  kings,  an 
active  and  unsparing  suppression  of  idolatry,  and 
of  other  offences  of  that  class.  In  fact,  the  due  ex- 
ercise of  the  civil  authority  without  the  addition  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  would  have  been  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  in  a  country  where  the  church 
and  the  state  were  one  and  the  same  things ;  where 
God  himself  was  the  chief  magistrate.  Hence  has 
been  drawn  the  justification  of  an  unwarrantable 
assumption  of  ecclesiastical  power,  of  a  jurisdiction 
extending  to  religious  matters,  by  the  civil  magis- 
trate, in  a  kingdom  of  God  which  is  not  of  this 
world  ;  an  usurpation  which  has  taken  place,  more 
or  less,  from  Constantine  the  Great  downward. 
And  asj  under  the  Israelitish  polity,  both  civil  au- 
thority implied  spiritual,  and  spiritual,  civil,  they 
being,  in  reality,  under  such  a  system,  the  same  ; 
hence  is  drawn  the  authority  for  the  opposite  spe- 
cies of  usurpation  to  the  above,  the  interference  of 
the  governors  of  the  church  with  the  affairs  of  the 
state ;   in  which  the  Romish  church,  though  she 


20  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

does  not  stand  alone,  has  at  various  times  carried 
her  encroachments  to  the  most  enormous  excess  ; 
claiming  a  right  to  depose  princes,  and  arming 
their  subjects  against  them.  But  the  doctrine  that 
"  dominion  is  founded  in  grace,"  and  all  the  extrav- 
agances of  the  *'  fith-monarchy-men"  and  the  Ger- 
man Anabaptists,  are  very  much  of  the  same 
stamp;  all  having  a  tendency  to  make  Jehovah's 
kingdom  a  temporal  one  under  the  gospel,  as  it  had 
been  under  the  law ;  to  "  take  Jesus  by  force  to 
make  him  a  king." 

I  need  scarcely  remark  how  boldly  the  Puritans, 
and,  indeed,  almost  every  party  among  Britons  at 
the  period  of  the  civil  war,  applied  to  their  own 
affairs  passages  out  of  the  Old  Testament ;  pro- 
moting and  justifying  every  kind  of  violence  and 
oppression  by  the  authority  of  texts  (of  which  they 
easily  found  enough)  relative  to  the  punishment  of 
idolatry  and  other  religious  offences  among  the  Is- 
raelites, and  even  to  their  enjoined  extirpation  of 
the  Canaanites. 

The  absurdity  of  many  of  the  misinterpretations 
and  misapplications  of  Scripture  which  belong  to 
the  single  class  I  have  been  considering  is  such, 
that  experience  alone  could  convince  a  man  who 
really  understands  the  Bible,  of  their  existence. 
It  may  safely  be  asserted  that  a  corresponding  ab* 
surdity  of  reasoning  and  conduct  in  the  ordinary 
affairs  of  life  would  be  much  more  than  sufficient 
to  convict  a  man  of  insanity.  Suppose  a  person 
professing  profound  veneration  for  the  laws  and 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  21 

devoted  submission  to  royal  authority  should  blend 
together,  in  a  confused  medley,  military  law,  com- 
mon law,  and  the  by-laws  of  particular  places, 
taking  into  account,  also,  all  the  temporary  acts 
that  have  long  since  expired,  and  applying  to  him- 
self on  all  occasions  every  command  which  the 
king  had  on  any  occasion  issued  to  any  other  of  his 
subjects,  would  not  the  half  of  the  extravagance 
of  conduct  resulting  from  such  a  system  be  such 
as  to  entitle  him  to  a  place  in  Bedlam?  But,  un- 
happily, it  is  that  very  case  in  which  a  correct 
judgment  is  of  the  most  awful  importance — in  the 
interpretation  of  God's  word — that  reason  is  the 
most  frequently  and  the  most  extravagantly  biased 
by  all  varieties  of  passions.  It  is  to  be  expected 
that  men  should  misunderstand  the  Scriptures 
when  they  search  them,  not  for  directions  how  they 
should  act,  but  for  a  plea  to  vindicate  the  conduct 
they  are  inclined  to  pursue.  I  believe,  accordingly, 
that  many  civil  governors  who  have  arrogated  to 
themselves  spiritual  authority,  and  have  employed 
coercion  in  religious  matters,  have  not  been,  prop- 
erly speaking,  led  into  this  error  by  a  misapplica- 
tion of  the  Old  Testament  to  the  Gospel  dispensa- 
tion, but,  rather,  have  been  led  to  make  that  mis- 
application in  seeking  for  a  scriptural  justification 
of  measures  dictated  by  their  own  inclination. 

I  would  not,  however,  be  understood  to  attribute 
even  the  bitterest  persecutions,  in  all  cases,  to  a 
cruel  and  tyrannical  spirit.  I  have  no  doubt  that 
many  sovereigns,  whose  only  fault  has  been  igno- 


22  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

ranee  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  religion  it  teaches 
(no  small  fault,  certainly,  in  those  especially  who 
set  up  for  enforcers  and  defenders  of  true  religion), 
have  been  led,  by  a  mistaken  sense  of  duty,  to  em- 
ploy coercive  measures  in  the  cause  of  what  they 
esteemed  orthodox  Christianity. 

**  A  ruler,"  they  may  say,  "  is  bound  to  provide 
in  all  points  for  the  welfare  of  his  subjects  ;  and  as 
religion  is  a  point  of  pre-eminent  importance,  he  is 
more  particularly  bound  to  put  down,  to  the  best 
of  his  power,  all  religious  errors  and  offences." 
Paley's  reply  to  this  argument  has  always  appeared 
to  me  insufficient.  He  remarks,  that  '*  persecu- 
tion and  coercion  of  every  kind  are  as  likely  to  be 
resorted  to,  and  may  be  employed  as  eftectually, 
in  the  cause  of  an  erroneous  as  of  a  true  religion ; 
whereas,  if  each  cause  is  left  to  the  support  of  ar- 
gument alone,  and  perfect  liberty  of  conscience  and 
freedom  of  discussion  allowed,  truth  will  be  likely, 
in  the  long  run,  to  prevail ;  and  that,  consequently, 
since  each  believes  his  own  religion  to  be  true,  all 
must  admit  the  expediency  of  establishing  and  ad- 
hering to  the  general  rule,  that  no  coercion  should 
be  employed  in  religious  matters."  I  am  not  trans- 
cribing his  very  words,  but  I  think  such  is  the  gen- 
eral drift  of  his  reasoning  in  that  part  of  his  Moral 
Philosophy  which  we  were  some  time  ago  examin- 
ing together,  in  which  he  discusses  the  question  of 
"  Religious  Establishments  and  Toleration."  And 
thus  far  there  is  at  least  much  force  in  what  he 
urges ;  but  the  subsequent  part  of  his  argument, 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN   CHURCHES.  23 

which  is  necessary  to  establish  his  conclusion,  is 
open,  as  I  think  I  will  be  able  to  evince,  to  objec- 
tions which  it  would  be  difficult  to  silence.  He 
contends,  in  conformity  with  the  principle  main- 
tained throughout  the  treatise,  that "  each  individual 
civil  governor  is  bound  to  abstain  from  coercion  in 
things  pertaining  to  the  conscience,  whether  all 
others  adhere  to  the  same  rule  or  not;  on  the 
ground  that  the  consequence  of  conformity  to  such 
a  rule  would  be  beneficial,  if  all  men  would  ob- 
serve it ;  and  that  that  is  a  duty  to  each,  which 
"would  be  expedient  if  all  men  did  it ;  such  con- 
duct, morally  wrong,  as  would  be  productive  of 
evil,  if  generally  practised."  We  are  to  look,  ac- 
cording to  him,  not  merely  to  the  particular  con- 
sequences, as  he  expresses  it,  of  each  action,  but  to 
its  general  consequences  ;  the  good  or  ill  result 
which  would  follow  if  every  one  acted  in  the  same 
manner. 

It  may  be  questioned,  however,  whether  this 
rule  of  Paley's  can  be  admitted  to  hold  without 
any  exception  ;  indeed,  he  himself  acknowledges 
that  it  does  admit  of  exceptions  in  cases  where 
the  importance  of  the  intermediate  consequences 
overbalances  that  of  the  general ;  as  in  the  instance 
of  pulling  down  a  house  without  the  owner's  leave, 
to  stop  the  progress  of  a  conflagration.  And  what 
is  more  to  the  present  purpose,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  the  civil  magistrate  will  not  always  con- 
sider the  case  now  before  us  as  one  of  the  excepted 
ones.    A  popish  king,  for  instance,  may  say,  **  I 


24  JEWISH   AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

am  convinced  that  salvation  is  impossible  out  of 
the  pale  of  my  own  church  ;  I  am,  therefore,  both 
authorized  and  bound  in  conscience  to  employ  the 
most  effectual  means  I  can  find  for  maintaining  the 
faith  and  for  suppressing  heresy.  A  heretic  prince 
may  indeed  think  much  the  same  respecting  his 
own  faith,  and  may  employ  similar  means  of  sup- 
porting it ;  and  I  may  acknowledge  that,  this  being 
the  case,  compulsory  measures  are,  on  the  whole, 
an  evil,  and  that  it  would  be  better  for  true  reli- 
gion if  all  would  renounce  them ;  but  till  this  is 
done,  if  I  were  alone  to  proceed  in  that  manner,  I 
should  give  an  undue  advantage  to  the  adversary. 
War  is  unquestionably  an  evil ;  and  it  wrould  be  a 
great  benefit  to  the  world  if  all  states  w^ould  agree 
to  disband  their  armies  and  destroy  their  magazines ; 
but  if  I  were,  on  that  ground,  to  think  myself  bound 
to  act  thus,  I  should  expose  my  subjects  an  easy 
prey  to  my  less  scrupulous  neighbours.  And  it  is 
the  same  in  respect  of  religious  liberty:  if  I  put 
the  Protestant  and  the  Catholic  on  the  same  foot- 
ing in  my  own  dominions,  while  Protestant  princes 
give  an  advantage  to  those  of  their  own  persua- 
sion, I  would  not  be  allowing  a  fair  chance  to  the 
cause  which  I  esteem  to  be  that  of  truth.  But 
even  supposing  it  possible  that  such  an  agreement 
for  the  renunciation  of  coercive  measures  could  be 
brought  about,  is  it  quite  clear  that  I  would  be  jus- 
tified in  acceding  to  it?  A  heretic  prince,  we  will 
suppose,  is  led  by  and  pleads  my  example  in  main- 
taining his  own  religion  by  the  secular  arm ;  but  I 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  25 

am  not  responsible  for  his  persecution  of  Catholics, 
since  he,  on  the  contrary,  is  answerable  for  the 
truth  of  his  persuasion,  as  well  as  for  the  means  he 
uses  in  supporting  it :  if  he  would  plead  my  ex- 
ample, let  him  follow  it  throughout  and  adopt  my 
faith.     If  he  will  not  do  this,  then  let  the  one  of  us 
who  is  right  stand  acquitted  on  that  ground  ;  not 
on  that  of  conscientiousness  ;  and  let  the  one  who 
is  wrong  stand  condemned  at  the  day  of  judgment, 
not  for  having  employed  the  civil  authority,  but  for 
being  a  heretic.     I  myself  stake  my  salvation,  not 
on  my  heliemng  myself  right  in  faith,  but  in  my 
actually  being  so.     If  the  result  should  be  a  depres- 
sion of  true  religion  in  my  neighbour's  dominions, 
I  would  bewail  this,  but,  I  am  not  responsible  for 
it:  were  I  to  permit  heresy  to  flourish  among  my 
own  subjects,  I  should  be  responsible,  since  they 
are  especially  committed  to  my  care.    A  sentinel 
would  not  be  justified  in  deserting  the  post  assigned 
him  by  his  general,  even  though  he  could  be  as- 
sured that  the  example  of  his  negligence  would  be 
followed  by  ten  of  the  enemy's  sentinels,  so  that 
the  advantage  would,  on  the  whole,  be  on  the  side 
to  which  he  belonged.     Suppose  you  had  one  son 
whom  you  were  bringing  up  carefully  in  truth  and 
virtue,  and  your  neighbour  had  ten,  whom  he  as- 
siduously trained  in  every  kind  of  vice,  it  is  evident, 
indeed,  that  to  leave  matters  to  nature  and  chance 
would  be  infinitely  better  than  this  latter  kind  of 
education,  though  much  worse  than  the  other  ;  but 
would  you,  on  that  ground,  make  or  accede  to  a 
c 


26  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

proposal  that  he  on  his  part,  and  you  on  yours, 
would  respectively  leave  your  children  to  run 
wild  ?  No  conscientious  parent  would  listen  to 
such  a  condition,  even  though  the  result  would  ap- 
parently be  a  diminution  of  evil,  looking  to  the 
whole  eleven  collectively ;  because  his  own  child 
is  intrusted  to  his  special  care,  and  his  neighbour's 
not." 

If  Paley's  argument  can,  in  truth,  maintain  its 
ground  against  such  a  reply  as  this,  which  I  some- 
what doubt,  we  may  at  least  be  certain  that  the 
above  reasons  would  appear  perfectly  satisfactory 
to  any  governor  whose  conduct  was  of  a  piece 
with  them. 

One  of  the  most  popular  arguments,  I  believe, 
against  persecution  is,  that  it  does  not  answer; 
that  it  rouses  a  spirit  of  opposition  to  the  doctrines 
thus  enforced,  and,  by  the  fortitude  with  which 
many  endure  it,  impresses  others  with  sentiments 
favourable  to  their  cause,  so  that  it  contributes  to 
the  diffusion  and  confirmation  of  the  religion  it 
strives  to  suppress.  This  is  true,  indeed,  of  a 
slight  and  feeble,  or  of  an  irregular,  unsteady,  in- 
terrupted persecution ;  petty  vexations  and  re- 
strictions exasperate  instead  of  subduing,  and  rouse 
men's  spirit,  without  quelling  it  by  terror.  Such, 
accordingly,  is  the  effect  which  was  produced  by 
the  penal  laws  against  papists  in  these  islands, 
and  by  the  harassing  tyranny  exercised  on  the 
Waldenses  at  the  present  day.  And  the  same  is 
the  case  with  the  most  bloody  severities  that  are 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  27 

occasional  or  partial.  But  a  government  which 
has  both  the  will  and  the  power  to  do  the  work 
thoroughly,  that  is,  to  prohibit  the  proscribed  reli- 
gion on  pain  of  death  or  banishment ;  to  hunt  out 
offenders  with  steady  activity,  and  to  inflict  the 
penalty  with  unsparing  strictness,  will  not,  I  believe, 
be  likely  to  fail  of  its  object.  All  history,  as  well 
as  reason,  confirms  this.  Where  are  the  Protes- 
tants of  Spain  ?  which  produced  some  of  the  ear- 
liest, the  most  right-minded,  and  the  most  zealous. 
They  were  burnt  as  fast  as  they  appeared,  and 
their  doctrine  came  to  an  end.  God  thought  fit, 
for  inscrutable  purposes,  to  permit  that  these  "  wit- 
nesses" against  the  abominations  of  the  Babylonish 
harlot  (Rev.  xi.,  9.)  should,  for  a  time,  continue 
lifeless,  and  that  the  kings  of  the  earth  should  be 
suflfered  still  to  remain  for  a  season  besotted  with 
"the  cup  of  her  abominations." 

Much  the  same  was  the  case  with  the  Lollards 
in  Britain  and  the  Hussites  in  Germany;  nor  can 
any  one  doubt  that  the  French  Protestants  were 
much  diminished  by  the  Edict  of  Nantes,  and  that 
if  corresponding  measures  had  been  steadily  and 
vigorously  pursued,  there  would,  at  this  day,  have 
been  none  left.  What,  indeed,  would  we  Britons 
have  been  at  this  day  had  an  active  inquisition 
been  established  in  these  kingdoms  at  the  dawn 
of  the  Reformation,  and  steadily  maintained  by 
successive  princes?  The  Emperor  Trajan  directed 
Pliny  to  make  no  search  after  Christians,  but  to 
punish  them  when  brought  before  him.     This  was 


28  JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

the  most  effectual  method  that  could  have  been 
taken  for  advancing  their  cause,  supposing  them 
originally  to  have  been  at  all  in  earnest  in  it. 
And  the  more  bitter  persecutions  of  many  of  the 
other  Roman  emperors  were  partial  and  tempo- 
rary; they  were  such  as  to  rid  the  church  of  in- 
sincere and  lukewarm  professors,  to  illustrate  the 
fortitude  of  the  martyrs  who  suffered,  and  to  give 
a  specimen  of  the  admirable  fruits  of  the  genuine 
gospel ;  but  not  such  as  to  break  the  spirit  of  the 
Christians  by  the  regular  destruction  of  all  who 
dared  to  show  themselves.  A  persecution  of  this 
character  is  like  a  flood  which  would,  by  a  long 
continuance,  have  destroyed  the  vegetation  it  cov- 
ered; but,  by  being  timely  withdrawn,  causes  it  to 
sprout  up  with  fresh  vigour.  I  doubt,  however, 
whether  the  severities  of  those  ancient  persecu- 
tions, far  short  as  they  fall  of  what  they  might  have 
been,  would  have  been  so  patiently  endured  by 
such  multitudes  of  every  age,  sex,  and  condition, 
had  not  some  supernatural  support  been  bestowed. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  the  Inquisition  has  given  suffi- 
cient proof  what  effects  may  be  produced,  where 
there  is  no  miraculous  aid  vouchsafed,  by  the 
thoroughgoing,  relentless  activity  of  her  who  is 
**  drunken  with  the  blood  of  the  saints." — Rev. 
xviii.,  3. 

I  would  not,  therefore,  recommend  to  any  prince 
to  abstain  from  violent  measures  against  heresy 
on  the  ground  that  he  would  thereby  defeat  his 
own  object,  lest  he  should  find,  on  examination,  that 


JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES.  29 

their  inefficiency  would  only  be  an  indication  of 
their  not  being  violent  enough ;  and  lest  he  should 
try  whether  the  flame,  which  is  increased  by  a 
gentle  breeze,  may  not  be  extinguished  by  a  fiercer 
gust. 

On  the  whole,  I  confess  myself  unable  to  find 
any  argument  sufficient  to  invalidate  the  force  of 
what  has  been  said,  such  as  I  could  urge  to  a  Mo- 
hammedan or  a  pagan  ruler  ;  but  one  who  professed 
the  Christian  religion,  and  sought  to  support  his 
faith  by  the  secular  arm,  I  would  rebuke  in  the 
words  of  his  Master,  saying,  "  Ye  know  not  what 
manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of;"  I  would  urge  that 
Christ  himself  has  expressly  renounced  all  secular 
authority  and  forbidden  all  coercion  in  the  cause 
of  his  religion,  both  by  his  declaration  that  his 
"  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world"  (which  would 
manifestly  be  false  if  he  authorized  the  employ- 
ment of  force  in  his  cause)  and  by  the  whole  tenour 
of  the  religion  he  founded,  by  everything  said  or 
done  by  himself  and  his  apostles  that  could  in  the 
most  decided  manner  confirm  and  illustrate  that 
declaration.  And  I  would  point  out  that  the  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Testament  which  have  been  er- 
roneously adduced  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine 
afford,  in  truth,  a  strong  confirmation  of  it  by  the 
relation  they  manifestly  bear  to  a  totally  differ- 
ent system  ;  to  a  kingdom  which  t^;a5  of  this  world, 
having  Jehovah  for  its  supreme  magistrate,  ad- 
ministering his  government  by  temporal  sanctions. 
And  I  would  conclude,  without  fear  of  refutation, 
c  2 


30  'JEWISH    AND    CHRISTIAN    CHURCHES. 

that  he  who  calls  in  the  civil  sword  to  the  aid  of 
Christianity  is  dishonouring  and  betraying,  instead 
of  serving  the  cause  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  who, 
when  those  his  sufferings  were  deprecated  by  his 
zealous  but  erring  disciple,  solemnly  reproved  his 
nnistake,  saying,  "  Thou  savourest  not  of  the  things 
that  be  of  God,  but  those  that  he  of  men;"  and  who 
commanded  that  same  disciple  to  "put  up  his 
sword  into  its  sheath." 

The  brief  sketch  I  now  send  you  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  show  on  what  grounds,  principally,  I  rest 
these  important  conclusions,  viz.,  that  the  law  and 
the  gospel  are  completely  contrasted  in  respect  of 
the  sanctions  which  support  them,  the  penalties  be- 
ing under  the  one  temporal,  under  the  other  those 
of  a  future  state  ;  that  the  former  kingdom  of  God 
was  of  this  world,  the  latter  not  of  this  world,  but 
spiritual;  that  the  employment  of  secular  coercion 
belongs  to,  and  implies,  a  government  that  is  of  this 
world,  and  consequently  is  (in  matters  pertaining 
to  Christ's  kingdom,  that  is,  in  religious  matters) 
inconsistent  with  the  character  of  the  gospel ;  that 
treason,  sedition,  and  rebellion  against  civil  gov- 
ernment may  be,  and  might  always  be,  lawfully 
repressed  by  civil  authority  ;  that  religious  offences 
are  crimes  of  that  stamp,  under  a  theocracy ,  and  a 
theocracy  only;  that  God  is,  under  both  systems, 
the  sole  Judge  of  such  offences,  on  which  punish- 
ment can  justly  be  inflicted  by  none  but  himself,  or 
persons  expressly  deputed  by  him  to  do  so;  the 
kings  and  other  rulers  being  thus  commissioned  by 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  31 

him  under  the  old  dispensation,  whose  penalties 
were  temporal,  while  under  the  new,  from  the  na- 
ture of  its  penalties,  no  man  is,  or  can  be,  com- 
missioned to  inflict  them  ;  and,  lastly,  that  while 
among  the  Israelites,  their  church  and  state  being 
one,  the  rulers  had,  necessarily  (as  vicegerents  of 
him  who  was  both  God  and  king),  the  civil  and  ec- 
clesiastical authority  combined  ;  under  the  gospel, 
on  the  contrary,  all  claims  of  the  church,  as  a 
church,  to  temporal  authority,  or  of  the  state  to 
spiritual ;  all  interference  of  the  one  in  civil,  and  of 
the  other  in  purely  ecclesiastical  affairs,  is  clearly 
prohibited,  both  by  the  character  of  the  institution, 
and  by  the  express  declarations  of  its  x^uthor. 

How  far  the  church  of  Christ  has,  at  various 
times,  conformed  to  or  lost  sight  of  these  princi- 
ples, I  will  consider  in  my  next  letter. 


LETTER  II. 


ON    THE    CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 


My  dear 


On  reconsidering  the  subject  of  my  last  letter,  it 
appears  to  me  that  most  persons  would  be  likely 
to  regard  it  as  no  more  than  an  expansion  of  the 
declaration  that  Christ's  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
world ;  a  truth,  they  would  say,  so  obvious  and 


32  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

undisputed,  that  it  is  a  waste  of  time  to  insist  upon 
it.  Unfortunately,  however,  it  so  happens  that 
many  truths  from  which  men  turn  aside  as  stale 
truisms  are  the  very  principles  which  lead,  by  a 
few  steps,  to  conclusions  which  the  very  same  per- 
sons start  at  as  extravagant  paradoxes.  And  such, 
I  apprehend,  is  the  case  in  the  present  instance  ; 
the  exclusively  spiritual  character  of  Christ's  king- 
dom having  been  long  universally  admitted,  though 
it  leads  to  conclusions  in  which  few  of  his  followers 
have  been  found  practically  and  constantly  to  ac- 
quiesce. 

The  kingdom  of  Heaven  which  is  established  by 
the  gospel,  being  one  which  the  Founder  thought 
fit  to  keep  distinct  from  all  secular  governments, 
not  interfering  with,  nor  blended  with,  any  civil 
authorities,  ought  neither  to  employ  nor  to  submit 
to  any  kind  of  coercion.  If,  for  example,  a  law 
were  made  and  enforced  by  temporal  penalties  re- 
quiring men  to  profess,  or  to  abstain  from  professing, 
a  certain  opinion  respecting  the  Trinity,  I  would 
call  that  a  violation  of  the  above  rule  :  if  the  law 
were  enacted  by  the  civil  magistrate,  I  would  call 
it  an  encroachment  on  the  church  ;  if  by  a  spiritual 
governor,  an  encroachment  by  the  church.  This 
latter  species  of  usurpation,  however,  can  rarely 
take  place  without  being  combined  with  the  former ; 
the  ecclesiastical  power  calling  in  the  aid  of  the 
secular  (like  the  Jewish  priests  delivering  over 
Jesus  to  Pilate),  that  the  penalties  denounced  may 
be  duly  enforced. 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  33 

Thus  the  inquisitor,  after  having  half  killed  by- 
torture  a  wretched  heretic,  and  then  condemned 
him,  delivers  him  over  to  the  secular  arm,  with  a 
reconnmendation  to  mercy,  which  is  understood  to 
mean  the  stake  and  fagot.  And  if  for  burning  we 
substitute  fine  and  imprisonment,  the  crMe%  indeed 
would  be  much  less,  but  the  infringement  of  the 
fundamental  law  of  Christ's  kingdom  would  be  the 
very  same. 

One  circumstance  which  greatly  contributes  to 
confuse  men's  ideas  respecting  a  point  which  is 
clear  enough  when  distinctly  proposed  is,  that  the 
same  individual  persons  are,  in  Christian  countries, 
members  of  two  distinct  communities,  whose  char- 
acters, whose  proposed  objects,  and  whose  regula- 
tions, as  well  as  the  sanctions  of  those  regulations, 
are  altogether  different,  viz.,  the  church  or  spirit- 
ual kingdom  of  Christ  (whose  proposed  object  is 
the  salvation  of  souls)  and  the  political  community ; 
the  state,  whether  regal  or  republican,  to  which 
they  belong,  the  object  of  which  is  the  protection 
of  men's  persons  and  property  in  this  world.  Now 
it  would  seem,  indeed,  to  require  no  great  share  of 
acuteness  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  a  man's 
belonging  at  once  to  several  difierent  communities, 
and  to  perceive  the  different  duties  and  relations 
thence  arising:  there  are, in  fact,  besides  what  I  have 
mentioned,  various  other  communities,  commercial, 
convivial,  literary,  &c.,  which  every  one  perceives 
to  be  established  on  different  principles,  to  have 
diflferent  objects  in  view,  and  to  be  under  corre- 


34  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

spending  regulations.  But  the  truths  which  appear 
the  nnost  obvious  when  distinctly  proposed  will 
often  be  forgotten  or  dimly  perceived  by  the  inat- 
tentive and  unreflecting  when  under  the  influence 
of  any  passion.  And  this  is  the  more  likely  to 
happen  in  the  present  case,  because  these  two  com- 
munities, the  state  and  the  church,  have  a  reference 
to  some  things  which  are,  to  a  certain  degree,  com- 
mon to  both.  Theft,  and  murder,  and  false  wit- 
ness, for  instance,  are  prohibited  both  by  the  law 
of  the  land  and  by  the  precepts  of  religion  ;  though 
on  different  grounds  by  each  respectively.  The 
civil  magistrate  forbids  them  for  the  sake  of  other 
meriy  that  the  peace  and  security  of  society  may  be 
preserved  ;  religion  forbids  them  for  the  sake  of  the 
individual  himself,  "pro  salute  animse,"  for  the 
good  of  his  soul,  which  the  legislator  and  the  judge 
have  nothing  to  do  with  ;  the  law,  in  short,  regards 
them  as  crimes;  religion  as  sins ;  and  the  one  de- 
nounces temporal  penalties,  the  other  those  of  a  fu- 
ture state.  But  still,  since  it  so  often  happens  that 
the  same  individual  act  will  be  forbidden,  or  will 
be  enjoined,  to  the  same  individual  person  by  both 
institutions,  the  tendency  to  confound  together  the 
institutions  themselves  is  thus  increased.  Since 
it  "is  lawful  to  punish  a  Christian  man  with  death 
for  heinous  and  grievous  offences,"  and  since  such 
offences  actually  are  contrary  to  his  duty  as  a 
Christian,  hence  the  unthinking  are  apt  to  forget 
that  it  is  not  as  violations  of  Christian  duty ;  it  is 
not  because  they  are  contrary  to  God's  laws  that 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  35 

they  ought  to  receive  punishment  from  the  hand 
of  the  magistrate,  but  because  they  are  political 
offences.  And  if  this  distinction  be  once  lost  sight 
of;  if  it  be  supposed  that  these  crimes  call  for  such 
secular  penalties  in  consequence  of  their  being 
(what  they  certainly  are)  religious  offences,  the 
same  rule  will  very  naturally  be  extended  to  the 
case  of  all  other  religious  offences  also;  many  of 
which  being,  in  reality,  no  civil  offences,  ought  to 
be  regarded  as  entirely  out  of  the  province  of  the 
civil  magistrate.  And  what  still  increases  this 
confusion  in  the  ideas  of  those  whose  reflections 
are  clouded  by  negligence  or  prejudice  is,  that 
Christians  are  not  only  forbidden  by  their  religion 
to  transgress  those  rules  of  natural  morality  of 
which  many  are  also  enforced  by  the  laws,  but 
they  are  also  required,  as  a  point  of  Christian  duty, 
to  obey  the  laws  even  in  matters  that  are  naturally 
indifferent ;  *'  to  submit  to  every  ordinance  of  man 
for  the  Lord's  sake  ;  the  powers  that  be  being  or- 
dained of  God,"  and  therefore  having  (when  not 
contrary  to  true  religion)  a  claim  on  the  Christian's 
obedience,  *'for  conscience'  sake."  And  some 
magistrates  perhaps  think  that  the  state  ought  to 
return  the  service  by  making  Christianity  a  part 
of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  regarding  every  offence 
against  religion  as  an  offence  against  the  law,  even 
as  the  apostles  make  every  offence  against  the  law 
an  offence  against  religion. 

When,  then,  you  consider  that  each  individual 
Christian  is  a  member  of  both  communities,  the 


36  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

state  and  the  church ;  that  many  things  are  en- 
joined or  prohibited  by  the  rules  of  both  societies, 
by  the  laws  and  by  religion  ;  that  Christianity  gives 
her  sanction  to  all  regulations  of  civil  government 
that  are  not  morally  wrong ;  and  that  the  Bible, 
so  often  indistinctly  and  confusedly  regarded  as 
one  book,  exhibits  one  case  of  a  complete  union 
and  amalgamation  of  the  church  and  state  by  Di- 
vine appointment  (viz.,  that  of  the  Jewish  theocra- 
cy) ;  and  when  to  these  considerations  you  add  the 
natural  propensity  of  all  men,  especially  those  in  au- 
thority, to  seek  for  every  possible  extension  and  con- 
firmation of  that  authority,  the  civil  magistrate  thus 
coveting  spiritual  jurisdiction  and  the  spiritual  ruler 
civil  power,  it  will  no  longer  appear  wonderful  that 
the  church  of  Christ  should,  in  almost  every  age  and 
country,  have  forgotten,  more  or  less,  the  great 
principle  which  he  laid  down ;  that  she  should  so 
often  either  have  committed  or  allowed  usurpation  ; 
either  interfering  in  secular  affairs,  or  allowing 
secular  influence  in  things  pertaining  to  religion  ; 
that  she  should  have  been  guilty  both  of  making 
encroachments  and  of  submitting  to  them. 

The  earliest  instance,  I  believe,  that  is  on  record, 
is  the  calling  in  of  Aurelius,  ix  pagan  emperor,  by 
Christians,  to  interfere  in  the  aflfairs  of  the  church 
by  ejecting  from  the  bishopric  one  Paul,  who  had 
been  accused  of  heresy.  Afterward  we  find  Con- 
stantine,  who  is  reckoned  as  the  first  Christian  em- 
peror, but  who,  in  fact,  was  not  a  Christian  (hav- 
ing never  been  admitted  into  the  church  by  baptism 


4 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  37 

till  he  was  on  his  deathbed),  condescending  to  ex- 
ercise the  same  interference,  and  depriving  the 
bishops  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Constantino- 
ple, on  charges  of  heresy. 

Then  began  the  severest  trial  by  far  of  the 
church  of  Christ ;  not  consisting  in  freedom  from 
persecution  merely,  and  in  temporal  prosperity 
and  wealth,  but  in  the  temptation  offered,  and  to 
which  most  Christians  yielded,  of  calling  in  the  sec- 
ular power  to  decide  their  disputes,  and  to  give 
one  sect  the  superiority  over  another.  And  from 
that  time  to  the  present  day  almost  every  partic- 
ular church  has  erred,  more  or  less,  in  the  same 
way,  by  exercising,  or,  which  is  the  same  thing, 
calling  on  the  civil  mamstrate  to  exercise  some 
kind  of  coercive  power  in  matters  of  religion  ;  and, 
of  course,  paying  the  price  of  the  protection  and 
support  received  by  allowing  that  magistrate,  as 
such,  whether  he  be  also  an  ecclesiastical  ruler  or 
not,  some  degree  of  control  over  the  affairs  of  the 
church.  It  is  the  height  of  folly  or  of  wickedness 
to  teach  that  Christians  may  "  use  their  liberty  for 
a  cloak  of  maliciousness,"  may  ''  resist  the  power" 
which  is  "  the  ordinance  of  God,"  and  claim  ex- 
emption from  obedience  to  human  laws  in  things 
which  fairly  come  under  their  cognizance  ;  but,  at 
at  the  same  time,  I  contend  that  it  is  a  sacrilege 
to  exercise  secular  power  in  religious  concerns, 
and  to  attempt  enforcing  the  doctrines  and  duties 
of  Christianity  by  the  sword  of  civil  government. 
"  Render  unto  Caesar  the  thino^s  that  be  Caesar's, 


38  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

and  unto  God  the  things  that  be  God's."  The 
characters  and  rights  of  the  two  communities 
should  be  kept  perfectly  distinct,  although  each  in- 
dividual Christian  be  at  once  a  member  of  both. 
It  is,  indeed,  a  thing  to  be  apprehended  generally, 
that  the  demands  of  two  different  communities 
upon  their  members  will  be  such  as  to  lead  to  an 
interference  of  claims,  to  a  clashing  of  duties  in 
those  who  are  members  of  both.  And  it  is  this 
apprehension,  I  suppose,  which  has  led  many  of 
the  governments  of  Europe  to  feel  a  jealousy  of  the 
freemasons ;  suspecting  that  the  duties  required 
of  them  by  the  society  they  belong  to  may  be  at 
variance  with  those  due  to  the  state.  But  in  the 
case  of  Christianity  nothing  of  this  kind  is  to  be 
feared  ;  its  requisitions  can  never  interfere  with 
the  duties  of  a  good  citizen  ;  the  things  it  prohibits 
are  such  as  no  just  government  will  ever  enjoin; 
and  in  those  points  which  it  leaves  at  large,  as  mat- 
ters in  themselves  indifferent,  it  inculcates  submis- 
sion to  "  the  ordinances  of  man."  And  surely  it 
is  one  mark  of  the  divine  wisdom  of  its  Founder, 
that  when  he  designed  to  found  a  kingdom  not  of 
this  world,  to  institute  a  society  perfectly  distinct 
from  and  independent  of  all  secular  authorities,  he 
took  such  effectual  care  that  none  of  the  regula- 
tions of  his  kingdom  should  in  any  wise  interrupt 
or  interfere  with  submission  to  lawful  civil  author- 
ity in  secular  concerns. 

But  the  distinction  which  was  so  wisely  estab- 
lished and  provided  for  by  God  has,  in  all  ages, 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  39 

been  in  some  degree  broken  down  by  the  perver- 
sity of  man. 

The  church  of  Rome  has  persecuted  the  most 
bitterly,  and  for  the  greatest  length  of  time,  chiefly 
because  she  has  had  the  most  and  the  longest  con- 
tinued power  to  do  so,  and  has  existed  during  the 
ages  of  the  greatest  blindness,  and  ignorance,  and 
barbarism  ;  and  it  has  been  urged,  that  the  right, 
and  even  duty  of  persecution,  is  one  of  her  most 
fundamental  articles  of  faith  ;  but  what  Protestant 
church  has  ever,  as  a  body,  expressly  renounced 
that  right  ?  The  Inquisition  is  a  most  horrible  tri- 
bunal ;  and  it  is  one  well  accommodated,  I  confess, 
to  the  genius  of  the  Romish  persuasion ;  but  it  is 
no  necessary  part  of  popery :  and  why  should  it 
not  exist  in  a  Protestant  country  ?  What  dis- 
claimer, for  instance,  is  there,  in  the  articles  of  the 
English  church,  of  all  right  to  erect  or  to  sanction 
such  a  tribunal  ?  What  denial  of  all  authority  in 
Christian  princes  to  restrain  religious  ofTendert  by 
the  civil  sword  ?  It  is  notorious  that  persecution, 
even  of  the  severest  kind,  did  take  place  under  the 
Reformers,  both  -in  Britain  and  in  other  countries. 
The  penalties,  indeed,  for  religious  offences  were, 
before  long,  greatly  mitigated,  and  in  successive 
ages  were  more  and  more  lightened ;  but  the 
question  now  before  us  is  not  respecting  the  sever- 
ity exercised  in  any  instance,  but  the  usurpation 
committed  :  if  the  civil  magistrate  have  no  rightful 
jurisdiction  whatever  in  religious  concerns,  it  is 
quite  as  much  an  act  of  injustice,  though  of  far  legs 


40  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

cruelty^  to  fine  a  Socinian  as  to  burn  him.  If, 
therefore,  the  abolition  of  capital  and  of  all  exces- 
sively cruel  punishments  for  religious  offences  had 
been  the  result  of  a  correct  view  of  the  character 
of  Christ's  kingdom ;  of  the  distinct  provinces  of 
civil  government  and  religion,  then,  of  course,  all 
those  punishments,  all  exercise  of  secular  author- 
ity in  such  matters,  would  have  been  abolished  at 
the  same  time,  and  would  not  only  have  been  in 
practice  actually  abolished  and  withdrawn,  but 
would  have  been  pronounced  to  have  been  in  prdn- 
ciple  all  along  utterly  unjustifiable  :  the  legislature 
would  not  only  have  forborne  the  exercise  of  any 
such  interference,  but  would  have  disclaimed  and 
protested  against  any  right  in  any  one  to  exercise 
it.  Whereas  the  very  passing  of  an  act  to  repeal 
an  act  of  this  description  implies,  that  however 
inexpedient  the  legislature  may  consider  it,  they 
yet  regard  it  as  valid  and  regular  till  repealed,  not 
as  null  and  void  all  along  ;  and  yet  one  who  ac- 
knowledges Christ,  and  recognises  the  true  charac- 
ter and  the  rights  of  his  kingdom,  must  acknowl- 
edge that  the  Briiish  king  and  parliament  have  no 
more  right  to  make  or  to  enforce  laws  for  the  gov- 
ernment of  Christ's  kingdom;  for  the  regulation, 
that  is,  of  Christians  in  their  spiritual  concerns, 
than  the  Bishop  of  Rome  or  the  Emperor  of  Russia 
has  to  make  laws  for  the  inhabitants  of  Great  Bri- 
tain. And  I  need  hardly  add,  that  as  no  secular 
coercion  can  properly  be  employed  towards  those 
who  are  the  subjects  of  Christ's  kingdom,  consid- 


CONDUCT   OF    CHRISTIANS.  41 

ered  as  such,  i.  e.,  in  religious  matters,  so  it  would 
be  utterly  inconsistent  with  such  a  principle  to  em- 
ploy force  to  bring  into  Christ's  kingdom  such  as 
are  not  subjects  of  it — pagans  and  infidels.  To 
persecute  men  (as  the  infidel  Jews  and  heathens 
did)  for  being  Christians,  is  a  violation  of  the  law 
5f  natural  morality^  which  dictates  that  no  man 
should  be  punished  by  the  civil  magistrate  for  any- 
thing which  is  no  offence  against  society :  to  per- 
secute men  for  not  being  Christians,  or  for  not  being 
orthodox  Christians,  is,  besides  this,  a  violation 
also  of  the  law  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  who  for- 
bade the  use  of  violent  means  in  his  cause. 

The  most  common  infringement,  however,  of  the 
great  principle  which  Christ  laid  down,  is  the  in- 
terference of  the  civil  power  with  the  church 
itself,  with  the  conduct  and  belief  of  Christians  con- 
sidered as  such ;  and  this  encroachment  is,  as  I 
have  said,  equally  committed,  whether  the  exercise 
of  such  authority  be  mild  or  severe.  I  cannot  but 
think,  therefore,  that  Protestants  have  too  hastily 
exulted  in  their  superiority  over  the  Romish  church, 
in  respect  to  the  persecutions  she  has  been  guilty 
of;  and  which,  though,  in  fact,  she  has  carried  them 
to  the  greatest  lengths,  are  yet  the  natural  result 
of  an  erroneous  principle,  common  to  her  with  most 
Protestant  churches  ;  a  belief  of  the  lawfulness  of 
employing  temporal  power  in  matters  which  con- 
cern the  conscience. 

It  is  true  that  Protestantism  is  eminently  calcu- 
lated to  enlighten  and  to  civilize,  and  thence,  ulti- 
d2 


42  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

mately,  to  soften  and  humanize  mankind  ;  and  has 
thus  contributed  very  materially,  though  in  an  in- 
direct way,  to  mitigate  the  harshness  of  religious 
intolerance  and  persecution  in  reformed  countries. 
The  mere  diffusion  of  general  knowledge   which 
accompanies  it  has  occasioned  the  civil  rulers  to 
perceive  more  clearly  the  political  inexpediency 
of  religious  persecution  ;  while   the  apprehension 
of  a  reaction,  such  as  took  place  against  the  tyranny 
of  the  Romish  hierarchy,  has  probably  operated  as 
a  check  on  spiritual  rulers.     But  much  of  the  im- 
provement which  has,  in  practice,  taken  place  in 
respect  of  the  point  I  am  speaking  of,   and  which 
has  been  attributed,  directly,  to  the   principles  of 
the  Protestant  religion,  has,  in  fact,  resulted  from 
causes  of  a  very  different  nature.     I  am  inclined 
to  think  that  a  very  great  majority  of  those  who 
heartily   disapprove  of  all    coercion  in    religious 
matters  do,  in  reality,  derive  this  opinion  (in  itself 
unquestionably  right)   from    one  or  both  of  two 
very  erroneous  principles  ;  1st,  a  conviction  of  the 
unimportance  of  those  points  of  doctrine  and  disci- 
pline respecting  which   persecutions  have  arisen ; 
and,  2dly,  a  humane  feeling  o{  compassion  towards 
the  sufferers.     Both  these  sentiments  are,  in  the 
present   case,   totally  irrelevant  and   misplaced : 
the  former,   a   persuasion  of  the  indifference   of 
"modes  of  faith,"  and  of  the  consequent  m]u?>\\cQ  of 
employing  violent  means  in  religion,  implies  di- 
rectly that  these  things  are  indifferent  in  the  sight 
of  God,    If  false  doctrine,  heresy,  and  schism  are 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  43 

to  be  regarded  as  such  mere  peccadilloes  as  not  to 
be  worth  punishing  or  restraining  by  the  arm  of 
the  secular  power,  we  cannot  with  any  consistency 
believe  them  to  be  grievous  sins,  liable  to  heavy 
future  judgments.  According  to  this  principle, 
therefore,  sincerity  must  be  considered  as  every- 
thing, and  orthodoxy  as  nothing  :  Hymenaeus  and 
Philetus,  whose  blasphemies  St.  Paul  so  strongly 
condemns,  will  be  placed  (supposing  them  to  have 
believed  what  they  taught)  on  a  level  with  Paul 
himself;  the  apostles,  generallj-,  who  went  about 
preaching  the  word,  will  be  equalized  in  God's 
sight  with  those  who  thought  "  they  did  God  ser- 
vice" by  killing  them  ;  and  "the  truth,"  in  the 
cause  of  which  Jesus  lived  and  died,  will  be  ac- 
counted a  matter  of  little  or  no  consequence.  I 
scarcely  need  remark  how  utterly  at  variance 
such  opinions  are  both  with  reason  and  revelation. 
And  as  for  the  other  sentiment  alluded  to,  though 
the  conclusion  be  right  to  which  it  leads,  it  is  en- 
tirely out  of  place  and  erroneous.  If  we  are  to 
abstain  from  the  punishment  of  religious  offences 
out  of  humanitij,  because  we  should  not  like  to  be 
persecuted  ourselves,  this  principle,  if  followed  up, 
would  lead  the  civil  magistrate  to  withhold  pun- 
ishment from  all  offences,  of  whatever  kind.  No 
one  likes  to  undergo  penalties  or  to  submit  to  re- 
straints of  any  kind  ;  but  while  we  admit  that 
all  restrictions  and  punishments  which  are  not 
called  for  and  authorized  by  the  demands  of  public 
expediency  are   (however  slight  they  may  be  in 


44  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

degree)  acts  of  cruelty  and  oppression,  we  must 
also  admit,  that  all  which  are  thus  requisite  for  the 
good  of  the  community,  and  which  relate  to  matters 
under  the  civil  magistrate's  cognizance,  are  not  to 
be  regarded  as  cruel,  however  heavy.  The  only 
question  is,  not  whether  coercion  and  punishment 
are  evils  in  themselves  or  not  (which  no  one,  surely, 
ever  doubted),  but  in  what  cases  and  under  what 
circumstances  the  magistrate  is  authorized  and 
bound  to  employ  them.  The  true  account  of  the 
matter  is  seldom  given  ;  which  is,  that  though  it 
is  no  cruelty  to  inflict,  for  the  public  benefit,  heavy 
punishments  on  "  heinous  and  grievous  offenders," 
and  though  irreligion  and  heresy  are  grievous  of- 
fences, they  are  not  such  as  fall  within  the  province 
of  the  civil  magistrate  :  for  them  another  judge  and 
another  tribunal  are  appointed. 

But  it  may  be  urged,  is  a  man  to  be  suffered 
with  impunity  to  propagate,  on  the  plea  of  con- 
science, doctrines  which,  forming  a  part  of  his  re- 
ligion, may  be  utterly  subversive  of  all  morality 
and  all  government  ?  The  case  is  no  imaginary 
one.  The  Anabaptists  of  Munster,  under  Knip- 
perdoling,  made  polygamy  and  perfect  freedom  of 
divorce  a  part  of  their  system,  and  set  all  law  and 
all  established  governments  at  defiance.  Some 
others  in  Germany  called  themselves  Adamites, 
renounced  the  use  of  clothing,  and  proclaimed  a 
community  of  goods  and  of  women.  Is  the  teach- 
ing of  these  and  similar  doctrines  to  be  tolerated, 
even  in  those  who  do  not  themselves  act  upon 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  45 

them,  on  the  ground  that  heresy  and  schism  are 
religious  offences,  and  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  magistrate?  Certainly  not.  No  one  should 
be  permitted  by  the  civil  governors,  either  to  be  a 
thief,  or  to  induce  others  to  be  so.  Since  it  never 
could  have"  been  the  design  of  the  Almighty  that 
the  secular  power  should  be  precluded  from  self- 
defence,  it  must  follow  that  those  who  teach  doc- 
trines subversive  of  it  hnng  themselves  under  its 
lash  ;  not,  however,  as  religious,  but  as  civil  offend- 
ers— as  aiders  and  abetters  of  crime.  But,  then, 
the  practical  ill  consequences  of  any  doctrine  must 
be  such  as  are  avowed  by  the  parties  holding  it 
themselves,  not  such  as  are  merely  alleged,  or  even 
proved  by  their  adversaries,  to  be  the  natural  and 
consistent  result  of  the  doctrines.  If  this  rule  be 
not  adhered  to,  a  door  would  be  opened  for  un- 
,  limited  persecution,  since  it  is  easy  for  an  adversary 
to  deduce,  with  some  plausibility,  the  most  danger- 
ous consequences  from  almost  any  doctrine,  as 
some  infidels  have  lately  done  with  respect  to  the 
Christian  religion  itself.  And  the  opponent  of  any 
set  of  opinions  may  not  only  be  sincere  in  thinking 
that  they  lead  to  practical  evil,  but  his  arguments 
to  prove  such  tendency  may  be  just ;  i.  e.,  he  may 
prove  that  the  holder  of  them  must,  or  may,  in  con- 
sistency with  his  tenets,  approve  of  such  and  such 
conduct:  yet  the  other  may  happen  to  be  so  in- 
consistent (according  to  his  opponent's  view)  as 
not  to  perceive  or  admit  any  such  consequences  ; 
so  that,  instead  of  inculcating  or  encouraging  such 


46  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

conduct  as  is  deduced  from  his  principles,  he 
may,  perhaps,  be  a  sincere  and  earnest  preacher 
against  it. 

I  would  not,  indeed,  say  that  in  every  such  case 
all  the  dangers  of  an  erroneous  system  are  com- 
pletely done  away ;  but  it  is  evident  that  they  must 
be  incalculably  diminished.  Augustine  (commonly 
designated  as  a  saint)  insists  upon  it,  that  the  here- 
tics he  wrote  against  could  not,  with  such  impious 
tenets  as  theirs,  practise  any  moral  duties  aright ; 
and  he  seems  to  think  that  the  orthodox  were  con- 
sequently showing  a  great  leniency  in  allowing 
them  to  possess  any  property,  and  even  to  live. 
And  I  need  not  remind  you  how  often  it  has  been 
proved,  perfectly  to  the  satisfaction,  no  doubt,  of 
the  writers  themselves,  that  Calvinism  leads  neces- 
sarily in  theory,  and  may  be  expected  to  lead  com- 
monly  in  practice,  to  an  utter  carelessness  of  life 
and  disregard  of  all  distinctions  of  virtue  and  vice  : 
yet  we  know  that  there  are,  and  have  been,  whole 
nations  of  professed  Calvinists  who,  in  successive 
generations,  have  not  appeared  at  all  below  their 
neighbours  of  other  persuasions  in  the  general  tone 
of  their  morals.  I  will  not,  indeed,  undertake  to 
prove  that  their  doctrine  has  no  dangerous  ten- 
dency ;  but  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  every  Cal- 
vinist  who  may  plead  this  doctrine  in  justification 
of  the  crimes  he  is  committing  (saying,  for  in- 
stance, that  he  was  predestinated  to  do  what  he 
did,  and  consequently  could  not  help  it),  was  ac- 
tually led  into  those  crimes  as  a  consequence  of  the 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  47 

doctrine  he  holds :  it  is  natural  to  every  man  to 
seek  an  excuse  for  his  misconduct  wherever  he  can 
find  it ;  but  it  is  possible  that  this  justification  may- 
be merely  an  after-thought,  and  that  the  very  same 
man  might  have  been  guilty  of  the  very  same  sin 
even  though  he  had  been  of  a  totally  different  per- 
suasion. 

The  ill  consequences,  however,  which  are  ac- 
knowledged by  the  professors  of  any  religion  as 
flowing  from  it  render  it,  so  far,  justly  punishable 
by  the  civil  authorities  ;  and  all  men  may  fairly  be 
required,  under  penalties,  to  abjure,  renounce,  and 
protest  against  any  such  consequences.  Papists, 
for  instance,  and  any  others,  may  fairly  be  called 
on  to  disavow  the  right  of  the  pope  to  depose 
princes ;  or  any  other  tenet  which,  like  that,  is  di- 
rectly subversive  of  civil  society,  or  of  the  moral 
conduct  which  is  necessary  for  its  temporal  wel- 
fare. And,  among  others,  I  think  all  men  may  be 
justly  required  to  renounce  the  doctrine  that  coer- 
cive measures  can  justifiably  be  employed  in  the 
service  of  true  religion,  and  that  the  civil  magis- 
trate has,  as  such,  any  control  in  respect  of  the 
purely  spiritual  concerns  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

I  would  not,  again,  be  understood  to  deny  the 
right  of  the  civil  governor  to  look  to  the  general 
conduct  of  bodies  of  men  of  whatever  description, 
and  among  the  rest  religious  communities.  If  it 
appear,  for  instance,  on  careful  and  unprejudiced 
examination,  that  papists,  or  that  freemasons,  or 
that  the  members  of  some  particular  literary  or 


48  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

scientific  society,  are  hostile  to  the  government, 
even  though  that  hostility  should  not  appear  a 
necessary  consequence  of  their  principles  and  in- 
stitutions, they  may  justly,  with  a  view  to  self- 
defence,  be  constrained  by  the  civil  power.  Thus, 
while  there  existed  a  pretender  to  the  British 
crown,  not  only  the  papists,  but  the  Scotch  Epis- 
copalians, on  account  of  their  inclination  to  Ja- 
cobitism,  became,  not  unjustly,  objects  of  suspicion 
to  the  government ;  though  the  religion  professed 
by  the  latter  of  these  was,  and  is,  the  very  same 
which  in  England  is  established  by  law.  But  still, 
as  it  is  not  on  account  of  religious,  but  of  political 
tenets  alone  that  they  can  justly  be  subjected  to 
the  censure  of  the  magistrate,  he  who  would  con- 
form to  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel  is  bound  to  seize 
the  earliest  opportunity  of  substituting,  whenever 
it  can  be  done  with  safety,  political  tests  for  re- 
ligious ;  of  securing  the  allegiance  of  the  subject 
and  the  temporal  welfare  of  society,  whenever  it 
is  possible,  by  any  other  means  rather  than  by 
such  as  cannot  but  be  likely  to  create  erroneous 
ideas  and  to  lead  to  practical  evils.  For  when 
any  religion  is  proscribed  by  secular  authority,  it 
must  always  be  difficult  to  keep  clearly  before 
men's  mind  the  important  truth,  that  no  offences 
against  God  alone  are  justly  cognizable  before  a 
civil  tribunal;  that  the  enactment  of  temporal 
penalties,  restrictions,  and  disabilities  for  religious 
delinquencies,  considered  as  such,  is  persecution, 
and  expressly  forbidden  by  the  Author  of  our  faith. 


CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS.  49 

But  in  all  such  cases  as  I  have  mentioned,  when 
such  occur,  we  are  bound,  for  the  reasons  above 
stated,  to  look,  not  to  the  supposed  necessary  con- 
sequences of  any  doctrine,  but  to  the  actual  and 
habitual  conduct  of  those  who  profess  it. 

I  have  implied  all  along  that  the  protection  oi 
any  religion  by  the  state  (I  mean  by  compulsory 
means)  is  as  much  to  be  deprecated  as  its  perse- 
cution. Indeed,  there  is  scarcely  any  difference 
between  the  two,  as  far  as  regards  the  encroach- 
ment on  religious  liberty.  To  punish  a  man  for 
professing  one  doctrine,  or  for  not  professing 
another  ;  to  punish  him  for  not  conforming  to  any 
particular  religious  community,  or  to  dictate  to 
that  community  what  shall  be  their  faith  and  ordi- 
nances, are  all  alike  usurpations  of  that  authority 
which  Christ  has  delegated  to  no  one. 

But  to  this  you  replied  by  objecting,  "  Are,  then, 
the  professors  of  the  religion  held  by  the  civil 
rulers  not  to  be  protected  by  them  from  violence  ; 
from  insult  and  abuse;  from  calumny,  ridicule, 
and  blasphemy  ?"  Undoubtedly  they  ought  to 
enjoy  this  protection,  not  only  of  their  persons  and 
property,  but  of  their  comfort  and  feelings  also. 
The  state  is  both  authorized  and  bound  to  pro- 
hibit and  to  guard  against,  by  her  own  appropriate 
penalties,  not  only  everything  that  may  tend  to  a 
breach  of  the  peace,  but  also  everything  that  un- 
necessarily interferes  with  the  comfort  and  mo- 
lests the  feelings  of  any  one.  1  say,  unnecessarily, 
because  it  may  be  painful,  indeed,  to  a  man's  feel- 

E 


50  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

ings  to  have  his  opinions  controverted,  and  to  be 
obliged  to  encounter  opponents;  but,  then,  free 
discussion  is  necessary  for  the  attainment  and 
maintenance  of  truth.  Not  so  with  ridicule  and 
insult :  to  forbid  these  can  be  no  violation  of  reli- 
gious liberty,  since  no  man  can  be  bound  in  con- 
science to  employ  such  weapons  ;  they  have  mani- 
festly no  tendency  to  advance  the  cause  of  truth  ; 
they  are,  therefore,  analogous  to  the  slaughter  of 
women  and  children,  and  other  non-belligerents, 
which  is  regarded  by  all  civilized  nations  as  a 
violation  of  the  laws  of  war  ;  these  being  unneces- 
sary cruelties,  since  they  have  no  direct  tendency 
to  bring  the  war  to  a  conclusion.  But  it  is  evident 
that  all  this  reasoning  applies  with  equal  force  to 
the  case  of  persons  of  every  religious  persuasion, 
whether  Christians  of  various  sects,  or  Jews,  or 
Mohammedans.  All  of  these,  though  they  must 
be  prepared,  indeed,  to  encounter  fair  argument, 
should  be  protected  not  only  from  persecution,  but 
from  insult,  libel,  and  mockery,  as  occasioning  a 
useless  interruption  of  public  or  of  domestic  peace 
and  comfort ;  and  this  being  an  offence  against 
society,  may  justly  be  prohibited  and  punished  by 
human  laws. 

Nor  would  it,  again,  be  any  encroachment  on 
the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ  if  the  legislature 
should  think  fit  to  require,  as  a  qualification  for 
certain  offices,  some  kind  of  knowledge  of  religion 
as  a  part  of  the  education  of  a  well-informed  man, 
Europeans  in  our  East  Indian  settlements  are  re- 


CONDUCT    OF   CHRISTIANS.  51  . 

quired,  as   I  am  informed,  to   possess   some  ac- 
quaintance with  the  Koran,  and  with  the  sacred 
books  of  the  Hindoos,  as  a  quaUfication  for  certain 
situations  under   government ;   now   if  it   should 
ever  be  thought   desirable  by  the   legislature  of 
any  state  that  a  corresponding  qualification  should 
be  exacted  of  those  who  are  to  take  a  share  in  the 
government,  or  to  administer  justice  in  a  country 
where  Christianity  is  professed  and  publicly  taught ; 
if  they  should  be  required,  I  mean,  to  give  proof 
of  some  degree  of  knowledge  of  what  the  Christian 
religion  is,  such  an  enactment  would   be  no  viola- 
tion of  religious  liberty,  no  usurpation  of  spiritual 
authority  ;  because  it  cannot  be  against  a  man's 
conscience  to  acquire  such  knowledge,  provided 
he  is  not  called  upon  to  make  diuy  profession  of 
faith;  to  assent  to  or  abjure  any  doctrine,  or  to 
declare  any  opinion  on  the  subject.     To  require 
that  would  be  a  very  diflferent  thing.     To  exact  of 
a  member  of  parliament  or  a  justice  of  the  peace 
to  subscribe  to  the  thirty-nine  articles,  for  instance, 
or  to  any  one  of  them,  would  be  a  departure  from 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel ;   but   to  require  him    to 
learn  them  all  by   heart,  or  ten   times  as  much 
more,  however  useless  and  politically  absurd  such 
a  regulation  might   be   considered,  would  be  no 
offence  to  the  most  tender  conscience  of  a  papist 
or  a  Presbyterian,  any  more  than  it  is  matter  of 
scruple  to  a  good  Christian  in  India  to  make  him- 
self acquainted  with  the  doctrines  of  the  Shaster 
and  the  Koran,  Avhich  arc  professed  by  the  people 


52  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

he  has  to  govern.  Such  a  requisition  would,  in 
fact,  have  no  more  to  do  with  conscience  than  if 
it  were  thought  fit  to  require  a  diploma  from  the 
universities,  or  an  education  at  the  Inns  of  Court, 
as  a  qualification  for  office.  I  believe,  also,  that 
in  our  East  Indian  dominions  the  rule  is  estab- 
lished which  I  have  just  adverted  to,  viz.,  the  pro- 
hibition of  all  open  insult  and  mockery  directed 
against  the  Mohammedan  and  the  pagan  worship. 
The  regulation  originated,  it  is  likely,  in  motives 
of  expediency,  that  the  natives  might  not  be  exas- 
perated to  rebellion;  but  it  is  no  less  just  than 
politic,  whether  its  justness  was  or  was  not  con- 
sidered by  the  framers  of  it. 

On  the  same  principle,  I  think  that,  in  a  country 
where  Christianity  prevails,  a  man  is  fairly  ame- 
nable to  the  laws  for  openly  working  on  Sundays, 
and  for  profane  swearing.  These  are,  in  such  a 
country,  public  nuisances  and  misdemeanours, 
since  they  otfend  and  scandalize  the  feelings  of 
those  who  see  them :  and  they  must  be  allowed 
to  be  every  way  uncalled  for.  No  man  can  think 
himself  bound  in  conscience  to  curse  and  swear; 
and  though  he  may  hold  it  lawful  to  labour  on  the 
Lord's  day,  he  cannot  doubt  that  it  is  lawful  to  ab- 
stain. Nor  can  he  complain  of  the  hardship  in  a 
temporal  point  of  view ;  of  a  restriction  common 
to  all  his  neighbours  ;  and  which,  therefore,  can 
give  them  no  advantage,  in  the  way  of  business, 
over  himself.  Besides  which,  if  a  man  were  per- 
mitted, and  thought  fit,  publicly  to  labour  in  his 


CONDUCT    OP    CHRISTIANS.  53 

calling  on  the  Lord's  day,  it  cannot  be  doubted 
that  he  would  require  those  in  his  employ  to  do 
the  same ;  so  that  the  restriction  is  not  only  no  vi- 
olation of  conscience,  but  is  even  rather  a  protec- 
tion to  it.  But  I  have  added,  oj^enly  and  publicly, 
because  it  is  the  publicity  alone  ihat  gives  the 
scandal,  and  thereby  constitutes  the  nuisance.  If 
any  one  chose  to  shut  himself  up  in  a  private  room, 
and  there  secretly  to  employ  himself  in  secular  oc- 
cupations all  through  the  Sunday,  he  would  be 
guilty  of  no  offence  that  can  justly  come  under  the 
cognizance  of  the  civil  magistrate. 

These,  then,  which  I  have  now  mentioned,  are 
not  properly  exceptions  to  the  rule,  that,  under  the 
gospel  dispensation,  the  secular  power  has  no  right 
to  interfere  in  religious  matters,  but  rather  expla- 
nations of  the  assertion.  The  state  is  bound  to 
protect  the  persons  and  properly,  and  to  provide 
for  the  temporal  peace  and  welfire  of  its  subjects; 
but  for  religious  offences  men  can  justly  be  tried 
and  punished  by  God  alone,  or  by  those  who  have 
received  a  commission  from  him,  which  no  secular 
magistrates  ever  did  receive,  except  under  the  the- 
ocracy of  the  Israelites. 

How  much  Christians  of  various  ages  and  coun- 
tries have  departed,  both  in  theory  and  practice, 
from  this  principle,  I  have  already  briefly  and  gen- 
erally hinted.  To  enumerate  in  detail  all  the  in- 
stances of  such  departure  would  be  a  tedious  and 
a  painful,  and,  to  one  at  all  versed  in  history,  a 
needless  task.  To  whatever  church  we  turn  our 
£  2 


54  CONDUCT    OF    CHRISTIANS. 

attention,  with  a  view  to  the  point  I  have  been 
considering,  w^e  find,  whether  we  look  to  its  past 
history  or  its  present  situation,  that  in  all,  or  nearly- 
all,  Christians  have  enacted  and  approved,  if  not 
such  laws  as  imply  downright  sanguinary  persecu- 
tion, yet  religious  restriction  and  coercion  of  some 
kind  or  other ;  the  enforcement  of  rules,  and  inflic- 
tion of  civil  penalties,  not  for  the  temporal  peace 
and  comfort  of  society,  but  for  the  benefit  of  the 
soul  of  the  individual,  and  for  the  glory  of  God  and 
advancement  of  true  rehgion. 

I  shall,  in  a  future  letter, examine  with  this  view 
some  circumstances  relative  to  the  church  of  which 
you  are  a  member;  as  I  consider  that  not  only 
«ome  things  have  been  practised  in  it  which  are  at 
variance  with  the  purely  spiritual  character  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  but  also  some  others  have  been 
thought  such  which  are  not,  and  have  on  that 
ground  been  exposed  to  a  censure  which  they  do 
not  merit.  The  line  has  seldom  been  accurately 
drawn,  and  on  just  principles  ;  but,  to  an  attentive 
and  candid  reasoner,  I  do  not  conceive  the  task  to 
be  so  difficult  as  some  might  imagine. 

It  will  be  necessary,  however,  for  this  purpose, 
to  inquire  first  into  the  character  and  extent  of 
the  authority  rightfully  claimed  by  the  Christian 
church  ;  after  which  I  shall  proceed  to  give  an 
outline  of  the  observations  1  made  to  you  on  the 
alliance  of  church  and  state,  and  on  religious  es- 
tablishments. 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        55 


LETTER  III. 

on  the  authority  of  the  church. 

My  dear  — - — , 
While  Jesus  Christ  not  only  claimed  no  tem- 
poral sovereignty,  but  firmly  refused  to  accept  it 
when  pressed  upon  him,  he  nevertheless  asserted 
his  regal  dignity  :  he  told  Pilate  that  he  was  a  king, 
though  he  assured  him  that  his  kingdom  was  not 
of  this  world.  And  he  delegated  authority  in  this 
his  spiritual  empire,  not  to  kings  or  other  civil 
magistrates,  but  to  apostles,  as  destitute  as  himself 
of  all  secular  power,  and  as  far  from  claiming  any. 
"  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you :" 
*'  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  Father  hath 
appointed  unto  me :  I  have  given  unto  you  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  whosesoever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whose- 
soever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained  :  whatso- 
ever ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven :  and  lo  !  I  am  with  you 
always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  I 
scarcely  need  remark  to  you  that  these  expres- 
sions imply,  not  merely  a  delegation  of  authority, 
but  also  that  it  was  delegated,  not  to  the  apostles 
alone,  as  individuals  (since  they,  as  individuals, 


56         AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

were  mortal,  and  Christ,  therefore, could  not  always 
be  with  them),  but  also  to  their  successors,  the 
bishops  and  pastors  of  the  church,  whom  they, 
doubtless  under  the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
ordained  to  fill  those  offices,  and  who  have  con- 
tinued in  unbroken  succession  down  to  the  present 
day.  Nor  can  it  be  necessary  to  reply  at  length 
to  the  empty  cavil,  that  the  force  of  this  uninter- 
rupted succession  is  destroyed  by  the  series  having 
passed  through  the  Romish  church,  whose  manifold 
abuses,  and  whose  usurpation  of  secular  power, 
obliged  Protestants  to  separate  from  her  commu- 
nion ;  or  rather  to  make  such  a  reform  as  induced 
the  Romish  church  to  withdraw  from  theirs.  It  is 
evident  that  the  misconduct  of  their  predecessors 
cannot  divest  them  of  their  right  to  ordain  succes- 
sors in  that  authority  which  -was  really  theirs.  If 
a  former  king  of  Great  Britain  have  advanced  a 
groundless  claim  to  the  crown  of  France,  this  can- 
not invalidate  the  right  of  his  descendants,  who 
have  renounced  that  claim,  to  inherit  their  own 
proper  dominions. 

The  power  of  the  church,  the  community  which 
Christ  established,  and  which  comprehends  all  indi- 
vidual Christians,  as  well  as  their  spiritual  gover- 
nors appointed  by  him,  has  manifestly  no  less  a 
claim  to  be  acknowledged  of  Divine  origin  than 
that  of  the  Jewish  theocracy  ;  nor  has,  consequently, 
any  less  title  to  reverence.  The  superstitions, 
however,  of  the  Romish  hierarchy  were  so  palpa- 
ble and  monstrous  as  to  produce  a  reaction  in  the 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        57 

sentiments  of  Protestants,  who  have  always  beea 
disposed  to  regard  with  jealousy  all  exercise  of  a 
power  which  had  been  so  shockingly  abused,  and, 
in  some  instances,  even  to  set  it  at  naught  alto- 
gether. Such  is  human  nature,  that  we  are  always 
liable  to  fall  from  one  extreme  into  another,  and 
to  condemn  the  use  of  that  whose  mischievous 
abuse  we  have  experienced.  But  "  the  church" 
(that  is,  the  Catholic  or  universal  church)  certainly 
is  not,  as  some  seem  to  regard  it,  merely  a  collec- 
tive name  for  all  who  happen  to  agree  in  certain 
opinions, like  the  names  of  "  Cartesian"  and  "  New- 
tonian ;"  but  is  a  society,  or  body-corporate  (if  I 
may  use  such  an  expression),  of  Divine  institution, 
compared  by  St.  Paul  to  a  natural  body,  and  of 
which  all  individual  Christians  are  members,  having 
a  certain  relation  to  each  other  and  to  Christ,  their 
Head. 

There  are  manifestly  two  ways  in  which  the 
governors  of  the  church  may  exceed  their  com- 
mission, though  the  distinction  is  one  which  is 
generally  overlooked.  Their  power  being  both 
restricted  to  its  own  proper  province  (viz.,  spirit- 
ual), and  limited  even  within  that  province,  it  is 
evident  that  to  transgress  the  appointed  boundary 
in  either  way  is  to  assume  an  authority  which 
does  not  belong  to  them.  Christians  have  not 
(considered  as  Christians)  any  secular  power; 
their  governors,  that  is,  their  spiritual  governors, 
bishops  and  ministers,  have  no  right,  as  such,  to 
interfere  in  civil  transactions,  nor  to  employ  coer- 


58         AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

cive  means  of  any  kind.  But  it  is  plain  that  the 
church  may  abstain  from  all  encroachments  of  this 
kind ;  may  refrain  from  all  usurpation  of  secular 
authority,  and  yet  may  be  guilty  of  an  usurpation 
of  the  other  kind,  by  "  teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men,"  by  imposing  new  condi- 
tions of  salvation,  by  inculcating  as  indispensable 
articles  of  faith  such  dogmas  as  are  not  warranted 
by  Scripture.  The  former  of  these  offences  may 
be  properly  designated  as  an  encroachment  on  the 
state,  being  an  assumption  of  that  temporal  juris- 
diction which  belongs  to  the  civil  magistrate:  the 
latter  is  a  direct  encroachment  on  the  authority  of 
Christ  himself,  who  has  revealed  to  man,  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  the  truths  which  he  requires  us 
to  believe  as  a  condition  of  salvation.  This  latter 
offence  may  be  compared  to  that  of  a  subordinate 
magistrate  who  encroaches  on  the  royal  preroga- 
tive, by  subjecting  those  under  his  control  to  unau- 
thorized enactments  of  his  own :  but  if  he  take 
upon  him  to  assume  power  over  those  not  placed 
under  his  control,  or  to  violate  a  foreign  territory, 
his  offence  corresponds  with  the  former  kind  of 
usurpation — the  interference  of  the  spiritual  ruler 
with  secular  affairs. 

What,  then,  it  may  be  asked,  are  the  limits  of 
the  spiritual  authority  with  which  Christ  has  in- 
trusted the  vicegerents  of  his  kingdom  ?  If  you 
were  to  answer  according  to  the  doctrines  of  your 
own  church,  I  should,  if  I  rightly  understand  her 
meaning,  fully  coincide  with  you.      The  church 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        59 

(according  to  the  articles)  has  power  to  ordain, 
alter,  and  abrogate  rites  and  ceremonies,  as  she 
may  think  nnost  conducive  to  good  order,  decency, 
and  edification  ;  and  she  has  authority  in  matters 
of  faith,  though  not  such  as  to  permit  her  to  im- 
pose articles  of  belief  not  warranted  by  Scripture, 
nor  to  interpret  one  passage  of  it  so  as  to  contra- 
dict another.  To  allow  the  church  this  latter 
power  would  be  to  supersede  the  Scriptures,  by 
teaching  men  to  look  to  her,  and  not  to  them,  to 
know  what  God  has  revealed.  To  deny  her  the 
other  power  would  be  to  supersede  the  use  of  the 
church  altogether,  since,  if  those  things  which  are 
in  the  Scriptures  left  at  large,  such  as  the  mode, 
for  instance,  of  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper,  the 
times  and  places  of  joint  religious  worship,  &c.; 
if  these,  I  say,  unspecified  points,  which  must  be 
determined  by  some  one,  are  not  to  be  determined 
by  the  church  in  each  country  respectively,  the 
very  purpose  for  which  Jesus  Christ  instituted  this 
society  is  defeated,  since,  if  she  has  any  authority 
at  all  (which  he  expressly  gave  her),  and  has  none 
in  matters  determined  in  Scripture,  she  must  have 
it  in  things  wwdetermined  in  Scripture.  And  it 
should  be  remembered  that  the  lowest  interpreta- 
tion (and  I  think  the  right  one)  which  can,  with  any 
shadow  of  reason,  be  put  on  the  expressions  of  the 
"  keys,"  and  "  the  remission  and  retainment  of 
sins,"  is,  that  spiritual  governors  may,  at  their  dis- 
cretion, admit  men  within  the  pale  of  the  visible 
church,  exclude  offenders  from  it,  and  restore  them 
on  submission. 


60        AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

The  distinction  drawn  between  "  power  to  or- 
dain rites  and  ceremonies,"  and  '*  authority  in  mat- 
ters of  faiih,"  seems  to  me  perfectly  reasonable, 
supposing,  I  mean,  that  I  interpret  the  article  cor- 
rectly. In  matters  of  discipline,  the  positive  in- 
stitutions of  the  church  make  things  right  and 
wrong  which  were  left  undetermined  in  Scripture; 
such  as  the  observance  of  religious  festivals,  forms 
of  public  worship,  administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  things  of  that  nature.  And  to  disregard 
the  authority  of  the  church  in  matters  of  this  de- 
scription (I  mean,  of  course,  in  such  cases  where 
there  is  nothing  ordained  that  is  against  Scripture)  ; 
to  consider  things  which  were  originally  indifferent 
as  indifferent,  after  the  church  has  enacted  reg- 
ulations respecting  them,  is  an  offence  against 
Christ  himself,  the  Head  of  that  body  ;  not  so  great 
an  offence,  I  allow,  as  direct  rebellion  against  his 
own  immediate  commands,  but  as  truly  an  offence. 
For  Christians  should  remember  that  they  cannot 
obey,  in  many  instances,  even  the  express  com- 
mands of  Scripture,  unless  they  comply  either  with 
some  kind  of  ecclesiastical  discipline,  or  with  some 
unauthorized  devices  of  their  own  instead.  Our 
Saviour  expressly  commands  the  celebration  of  the 
holy  communion,  and  St.  Paul,  the  assembling  of 
Christians  for  the  purpose  of  prayer  and  religious 
exhortation.  Now  these  things  must  be  done  in 
some  time,  place,  and  form,  if  the  commands  are 
to  be  obeyed  at  all ;  and  if  each  follows  his  own 
fancy  in  these   points,  there  will  be   *' divisions 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        61 

among  Christians,"  *'  they  will  come  together,  not 
for  the  better,  but  for  the  worse,"  like  the  disorderly 
Corinthians,  of  whom  every  one  had  a  Psalm,  had 
an  exhortation,  had  an  interpretation,  &c.,  which 
led  to  confusion  and  discord,  all  which  are  ex- 
pressly forbidden  in  Scripture  itself.  It  seems  im- 
possible, therefore,  for  an  unprejudiced  mind  to 
doubt  that  Christians  are  bound  to  "  obey  them  that 
have  rule  over  them,  and  esteem  them  very  highly 
for  their  work's  sake,"  and  that  Christ  established 
a  spiritual  society,  with  spiritual  officers  over  it, 
for  the  express  purpose,  among  others,  of  regulating 
things  of  this  nature,  which  must  be  regulated  in 
some  way  or  other  ;  from  which  it  follows,  inevita- 
bly, that  such  regulations  of  the  church  have  the 
sanction  of  his  authority  ;  that  "  whatsoever  they 
shall  hind  or  loose  on  earth,"  that  is,  whatever  or- 
dinances and  decrees  of  this  kind  they  establish  or 
abrogate,  "  shall  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven ;" 
that  is,  such  their  decisions  will  be  ratified  and  con- 
firmed by  him,  their  Master,  in  heaven.  And, 
accordingly,  although  it  be  in  itself  morally  indif- 
ferent, for  instance,  whether  the  communicants 
receive  the  Lord's  Supper  standing,  kneeling,  or 
(as  the  apostles  did  at  the  institution  of  it)  lying 
down,  or  in  any  other  posture ;  yet  in  eacn  branch 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  that  posture  ought  to  be 
used,  as  a  point  of  reverent  obedience  to  him, 
which  is  there  prescribed  by  his  ministers.  It  is 
not  even  expressly  declared  in  Scripture  that  this 
sacrament  should  be  administered  by  the  priest  or 


62        AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

spiritual  elder ;  but  it  is  evident,  that  for  the  sake 
of  that  decency  and  good  order  which  are  dis- 
tinctly enjoined  by  St.  Paul,  some  persons  must 
preside  at  the  celebration ;  and  ordained  ministers 
seeming  to  have  the  fairest  claim  to  be  selected  for 
this  office,  the  church  has,  accordingly,  in  all  ages, 
1  believe,  assigned  it  to  them,  which  appointment, 
therefore,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  things 
which  are  "  bound  in  heaven,"  which  have  their 
sanction  and  ratification  from  Christ  himself. 

The  authority  of  the  church  in  matters  of  faith 
is  a  point  of  great  nicety,  and  in  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  draw  the  line  so  accurately.  It  is  evident 
that  the  decision  of  the  church  does  not  in  this,  as 
in  the  other  case,  make  anything  right  or  wrong; 
she  can  only  declare,  from  the  Scriptures,  what  are 
the  Christian  doctrines  and  duties,  and  declare  this 
by  a  fallible  judgment.  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  society  was  instituted,  in  part,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  preserving  and  teaching  the  true  faith,  in 
subserviency  to  the  Word  of  God.  The  church, 
both  pastors  and  their  flock,  being  but  fallible,  may 
err  in  their  deductions  from  it,  and  no  man  ought 
to  assent,  on  human  authority,  to  any  doctrine  or 
practice  which  he  may  be  convinced  is  thus  erro- 
neous, supposing,  always,  that  he  have  attentively 
considered  the  question,  and  allowed  due  weight 
to  the  numbers,  the  learning,  or  the  sound  sense  of 
those  who  may  think  differently  from  him.  But 
there  can  be  no  doubt,  in  any  candid  mind,  that 
the  ministers,  and  other  such  members  of  the 


AUTHORITY    OF    THE    CHT3RCH.  63 

church  as  have  power  and  opportunity,  were  de- 
signed by  their  Founder  to  have  the  office  of  teach- 
ing the  Christian  religion  in  a  regular  and  syste- 
matic form  to  their  children  and  others  who  may 
need  instruction.  There  are  some  very  just  re- 
marks to  this  purpose,  in  a  little  work  on  Christian 
Tradition,  which  I  saw  at  your  house,  by  a  Dr. 
Hawkins,  if  I  recollect  rightly,  of  Oxford,  in  which 
the  author  remarks,  that  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  are  evidently  not  calculated,  nor  could 
have  been  intended,  to  convey  to  learners  the  ele- 
ments of  the  Christian  faith,  all  the  books  of  which 
it  consists  having  been  written  for  the  use  of  Chris- 
tian converts  ;  and  that,  therefore,  it  must  have  been 
the  intention  of  Jesus  Christ  that  the  church  he 
established  should  have  the  office  of  drawing  out 
and  setting  in  order,  with  a  view  to  instruction, 
the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  referring  to  the  inspired 
writers  for  the  p?'oofs  of  everything  advanced  ;  the 
error  of  the  Romanists  consisting  in  their  claim  of 
authority  for  their  tradition,  independent  of  Scrip- 
ture, and,  in  many  instances,  superior  to  it. 

But  though  the  spiritual  rulers  and  other  mem- 
bers of  the  church  can  claim  no  infallibility,  but  are 
bound  to  make  a  constant  appeal  to  the  Bible,  and 
to  rectify  every  error  they  may  detect,  they  must 
be  also  bound  to  do  their  utmost  to  maintain,  in  its 
purity,  what  they  are  convinced,  to  the  best  of 
their  judgment,  is  Gospel-truth  ;  to  "  hold  fast  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  Fallible  though 
they  must  be,  after  all,  they  must  not  only  use  their 


64         AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

best  endeavours  to  ascertain  the  right  sense  of 
Scripture,  and  to  instruct  men  in  sound  doctrines, 
but  they  must  also  preserve  those  sound  doctrines, 
and  enforce  corresponding  practice  within  the 
church,  by  excluding  from  the  society  all  such  as 
are  incorrigibly  faulty  in  either  point.  This  is  not 
merely  authorized,  but  expressly  commanded  in 
Scripture.  St.  Paul  charges  his  churches  to  "re- 
ject, after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  a  man 
that  is  a  heretic ;"  to  "  mark  those  that  cause  di- 
visions among  them,  and  avoid  them ;"  not  to  as- 
sociate with  such  as  "walk  disorderly  ;"  to  with- 
draw from  the  society  of  any  one  who  disobeys  his 
(Paul's)  injunctions,  "  that  he  may  be  ashamed ;" 
and  if  any  "one  that  is  called  a  brother  (that  is,  a 
Christian)  be  a  notorious  evil  liver,  with  such  a 
one  not  even  to  eat."  Indeed,  Christians  would 
commit  a  worse  offence  than  the  heretic  himself 
(supposing  him  sincere  in  his  error)  if,  while  con- 
vinced of  the  falsity  and  danger  of  his  doctrines, 
they  yet  lent  him  their  countenance,  and  left  him 
opportunity  of  infecting  others.  The  very  notion 
is  absurd,  of  a  society  whose  members  disagree  as 
to  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  it  rests,and 
the  objects  it  proposes.  It  would  be  like  an  as- 
semblage of  mariners  in  a  ship,  who  could  not 
agree  as  to  the  direction  in  which  it  should  be 
steered.  Nor,  again,  can  any  society  subsist,  at 
least  to  any  beneficial  purpose,  unless  its  members 
comply  with  the  regulations  essential  to  the  attain- 
ment of  its  proposed  objects.     The  church,  ac- 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        65 

cordingly,  is  bound,  as,  indeed,  St.  Paul  enjoins,  to 
enforce  on  her  members  the  observance  of  her 
rules,  whether  founded  on  the  principles  of  natural 
morality  or  on  positive  ordinance.  And  as  this 
enforcement  must  not  be  by  violent  means,  the  last 
resort  of  the  church,  when  admonition  and  cen- 
sure fail,  her  "  ratio  ultima"  must  be  exclusion  fronni 
the  society ;  in  other  words,  excommunication. 
This  term  sounds  harshly,  partly  from  its  associa- 
tion with  the  abuses  of  the  Romish  church,  and 
partly  from  the  secular  penalties  which  in  many 
Protestant  states  have  been  superadded  ;  but  these 
are  no  part  of  excommunication,  which  means 
simple  rejection  from  the  society,  which  it  would 
be  most  unreasonable  for  one  to  complain  of  who 
wilfully  and  pertinaciously  infringed  the  regulations 
of  that  society.  The  celebration,  for  instance,  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  is  one  of  the  ordinances  estab- 
lished by  the  Author  of  our  religion,  and  made 
binding  by  him  on  all  his  subjects.  The  particular 
church  to  which  you  belong  has  prescribed  a  de- 
cent and  solemn  form  for  this  celebration,  and  re- 
quires every  one  of  her  members  to  attend  on  it 
(unless  there  be  a  reasonable  cause  to  the  con- 
trary) "  at  least  three  times  in  the  year,  whereof 
Easter  be  one."  Now  any  one  who  will  neglect  to 
comply  with  this  regulation,  and  who,  on  being  ad- 
monished by  the  minister,  will  yet,  without  any 
reasonable  excuse,  persist  in  absenting  himself,  is  a 
wilful  and  deliberate  violator  of  an  essential  law  of 
the  kingdom  of  which  he  is  a  subject,  and  this, 
F  2 


66         AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

equally,  whether  his  noncompliance  proceed  from 
disbelief  of  the  universal  obligation  to  obey  that 
command  of  Christ,  or  from  determination  to  per- 
sist in  a  life  of  sin,  or  from  any  other  cause.  Such 
a  person,  therefore,  has  forfeited  all  right  to  retain 
his  place  in  that  community  :  its  officers  are  clearly 
bound  to  expel  him.  Will  this  be  called  an  undue 
assumption,  or  a  harsh  employment  of  authority  ? 
I  would  be  glad  to  know  whether  there  is  any  other 
voluntary  society,  literary  or  scientific,  any  club, 
that  does  not  do  the  same.  There  is  not  even  an 
association  for  purposes  of  amusement  or  conviv- 
iality which  has  not  its  regulations  and  standing 
orders,  and  which  does  not  exclude  from  the  list 
of  its  members  those  who  pertinaciously  refuse 
compliance  with  them,  or  which  is  ever  censured 
for  so  doing,  however  frivolous  the  regulations 
themselves  may  be  thought.  And  the  reasonable- 
ness of  this  is  obvious  :  it  is  that  those  who  choose 
to  become,  or  to  continue  members  of  any  such 
club  or  institution,  should  make  up  their  minds 
either  to  conform  to  the  regulations  to  which  they 
have  thus  freely  subjected  themselves,  or  else  to 
withdraw. 

So,  also,  in  the  case  of  Christian  ecclesiastical  dis- 
cipline, it  is  absolutely  essential  to  its  character 
that  it  be  voluntary;  that  no  one  should  be  sub- 
jected to  it  except  by  his  own  choice.  The  Chris- 
tian church  has  no  secular  power  ;  no  right  of  ab- 
solute coercion ;  she  has,  indeed,  no  Divine  authority 
whatever,  except  over  her  own  members,  as  long  as 


AUTIIOKITY    OF    THE    CHURCH.  67 

they  continue  to  be  such  by  their  own  choice,  and 
claim  rights  appertaining  to  them  as  such.  To 
compel  any  one  to  become,  or  to  continue  a  mem- 
ber, would  evidently  be  to  extend  the  church's  au- 
thority to  those  exempt  from  it ;  authority  of  a  sec- 
ular character.  The  aliens  from  Christ's  king- 
dom, and  the  rebels  against  his  dominion,  are  to  be 
judged  by  himself  alone  ;  the  authority  he  delegated 
to  the  pastors  of  his  flock  extends  only  to  those 
who  choose  to  remain  within  the  fold.  In  the  sight 
of  God,  indeed,  every  one  who  has  once  been  made 
a  member  of  the  church  must  ever  remain  a  sub- 
ject, though  he  may  be  an  unworthy  and  rebellious 
subject  of  the  kingdom  of  lieaven,  since  no  one  can, 
by  his  own  act  and  deed,  throw  off  rightful  allegi- 
ance; but  it  is  in  God's  sight  alone  that  he  is  thus 
to  be  regarded  :  the  visible  church  on  earth  are  no 
longer  to  regard  him  as  one  of  their  members. 
*'  If  he  refuse  to  hear  the  church,  let  him  be  unto 
you  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican." 

1  believe  that  the  disregard  of  this  distinction 
has  led  to  much  confusion  in  the  judgments  and 
error  in  the  conduct  of  both  Roman  Catholics  and 
Protestants.  Because  every  Christian  is  necessa- 
rily, and  can  never  cease  to  be,  a  member  of 
Christ's  church  (which  before  God  and  his  own 
conscience  certainly  is  the  case),  and  because  her 
purely  spiritual  denunciations  cannot  restrain  or 
recall  one  who  resolves  to  disregard  them,  hence 
the  secular  power  has  been  called  in,  and  coercive 
means  employed,  to  enforce  the  mandates  of  the 


68         AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHLRCH. 

church  on  a  refractory  or  apostate  member,  towards 
whom  her  admonitions  have  become  powerless,  but 
who,  nevertheless,  still  is  a  member.  And  it  is  on 
this  ground,  if  J  recollect  right,  that  some  of  the 
Romanists,  while  they  disclaim  the  right  of  perse- 
cuting pagans  or  Jews,  insist  on  that  right  with 
respect  to  heretics ;  contending  that  the  one  are 
aliens,  but  the  other  rebellious  subjects,  and  con- 
sequently punishable  by  forcible  means.  And  it 
is  true,  they  are  rebellious  subjects  in  the  sight  of 
God,  but  the  authority  of  the  church  on  earth  over 
them  ceases  on  their  expulsion  from  it ;  she  is 
charged  expressly  by  her  Founder  to  regard  such 
in  the  light  of  heathen  men ;  that  is,  aliens,  with 
whom  they  have  no  religious  connexion.  In  short, 
the  authority  delegated  by  Christ  to  the  officers  of 
his  kingdom  must  extend  over  such  only  as  they 
can  restrain  or  correct  by  the  means  he  has  per- 
mitted them  to  use  ;  now  these  means,  since  they 
are  exclusively  spiritual  (all  forcible  methods  being 
expressly  forbidden),  can  have  no  influence  on  any 
one  who,  ''  refusing  to  hear  the  church,"  is  excluded 
from  her  communion;  it  follows,  therefore,  inevi- 
tably, that  such  a  one  ceases  from  that  time  to  be 
under  her  jurisdiction  (though,  of  course,  he  con- 
tinues responsible  to  his  Master),  till  he  voluntarily 
return  and  make  submission. 

In  this  respect  there  is  a  coincidence  between 
the  Jewish  church  and  the  Christian,  since  the 
former  also  claimed  no  jurisdiction  over  mankind 
at  large  ;  neither  having,  nor  pretending  to  (as  I 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        69 

formerly  remarked  to  you),  any  commission  to  put 
down  idolatry  in  other  nations,  and  compel  them 
to  observe  the  law  of  Moses.  No  idols,  indeed, 
were  to  be  permitted  in  the  very  land  itself,  which 
was  altogether  holy  to  the  Lord  ;  but  even  within 
that  territory  hired  servants  and  other  strangers 
were  permitted  to  dwell,  not  only  without  being 
required  to  conform  to  all  the  Mosaic  institutions, 
but  without  being  even  permitted  to  celebrate,  for 
instance,  the  Passover,  unless,  at  their  own  desire, 
they  were  initialed  into  the  church  of  Israel. 

Wherein,  then,  consisted,  it  may  be  said,  the  dif- 
ference, in  respect  to  this  point,  between  the  two 
churches?  Evidently  in  this:  that  every  indi- 
vidual of  that  nation,  all  the  children  of  Israel,  were 
necessarily  members  of  that  united  church  and 
state  ;  they  had  no  more  liberty  to  leave  it  than  the 
subject  of  any  other  secular  government  has  to  re- 
nounce his  obedience  to  it.  It  was  a  temporal 
kingdom,  and  therefore  its  regulations  were  very 
suitably  enforced  by  temporal  penalties,  and,  in  the 
last  resort,  by  death.  The  Christian  church,  on  the 
contrary,  is  not  confined  to  one  nation,  but  all  men 
are  invited,  though  no  one  can  be,  by  coercive 
means,  compelled  to  join  it.  Every  one,  indeed,  is 
bound  to  do  so,  who  hears  the  invitation,  at  his  own 
peril,  and  is  also  bound  to  walk  worthy  of  his  vo- 
cation ;  but  the  penalties  under  which  he  is  so 
bound  are  not  such  as  man  is  impowered  to  in- 
flict ;  they  are  those  of  the  next  world. 

Persuasion  and  remonstrance — the  "  meekness 


70         AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

of  instruction" — are  the  engines  by  which  the  gos- 
pel "  fishers  ofnnen"  are  to  seek  for  converts,  and 
to  retain  those  of  whom  they  have  possession.  I 
need  hardly  stop  to  refute  the  absurd  justification 
of  violent  nneasures  which  some  papists  have  drawn 
from  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  expression, 
"compel  them  to  come  in;"  which  is  a  natural, 
and,  indeed,  usual  way  of  speaking  of  an  earnest 
and  pressing  invitation.  In  fact,  the  very  word  I 
have  just  used  might  with  as  good  reason  be  inter- 
preted literally  as  implying  the  use  of  force ;  and 
thence  it  might  be  inferred,  that  if  any  one  was 
said  to  have  pressed  his  friend  to  stay  and  dine 
with  him,  this  mu>t  signify  that  he  employed  a 
press-gang  to  detain  him  by  bodily  force.  Such  an 
interpreter,  too,  must  think  himself  bound  to  believe 
that  violent  means  were  used  towards  Jesus  by 
his  two  disciples,  who,  after  the  resurrection,  when 
"he  made  as  if  he  would  have  gone  farther"  (Luke 
xxiv.,  28),  are  said  by  the  Evangelist  to  have  "  con- 
strained him"  to  abide  with  them. 

But  though  the  Christian  church  has  no  author- 
ity to  compel  men  to  come  in  (as  no  society  not 
possessing  secular  power  can  have),  she  has  au- 
thority, as  every  free  society  must  have,  to  compel 
them  to  stay  out.  And  she  evidently  has  a  right  to 
inflict  on  her  offending  members  any  kind  of  pun- 
ishment she  may  think  fit,  they  having  always  the 
option  of  undergoing  it  or  leaving  the  society. 
The  primitive  church  seems  to  have  been  sufli- 
ciently  severe  with  those  whose  apostacy,  immo- 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        71 

rality,  or  heresy  had  given  offence,  being  naturally 
desirous,  as  placed  in  the  midst  of  foes  and  slander- 
ers, not  only  to  adhere  to  the  principles  of  the  so- 
ciety, but  also  to  refute  the  calumnies  of  "those 
that  were  without."  We  read,  accordingly,  of 
long  and  painful  penances  imposed  on  the  more 
grievous  offenders,  and  of  their  gradual  readmit- 
tance  after  passing  through,  several  distinct  stages 
of  humiliation.  First,  they  were  only  allowed  to 
stand  at  the  door  of  their  place  of  worship;  then 
to  be  admitted  within  it  as  "  prostrate,"  lying  pros- 
trate during  the  service;  next,  as  permitted  to 
stand  up,  but  in  a  distinct  place  ;  and,  lastly,  after 
being  admitted  to  an  equality,  in  other  points,  with 
the  rest  of  the  congregations,  as  being  still  ex- 
cluded from  the  communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
till  a  further  period  had  elapsed.  The  bishop  had 
the  right  of  modifying  and  remitting  these  pen- 
ances, according  to  the  degree  of  penitence  in  the 
offenders ;  but  we  may  suppose  that  one  who 
knew  that  he  put  his  life  in  jeopardy  by  accepting 
the  episcopal  office  v/as  not  likely  to  be  remiss 
or.  over  lenient  in  these  matters.  If  any  chose, 
as  it  was  likely  many  would,  to  remain  excluded 
rather  than  submit  to  such  penance,  there  was  no 
remedy :  "  If  the  unbelieving  depart,  let  him  de- 
part." But  afterward,  when  the  civil  magistrates 
were  Christian,  a  remedy  seemed  to  present  itself. 
Considering  that  it  was  desirable  (as  it  certainly 
is)  that  every  such  offender  should  make  submis- 
sion, and  seek  to  be  reconciled  to  the  church,  and 


72        AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

forgetting  (what  is  equally  true)  that  this  is  de- 
sirable only  when  such  submission  is  unforced, 
the  secular  authorities  endcfivoured,  literally,  to 
*'  compel  them  to  come  in,"  and  denounced  tem- 
poral penalties  against  spiritual  offenders,  to  back 
the  censures  of  the  church  by  the  civil  sword,  thus 
striking  at  the  root  of  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
Christ,  and  incurring  his  rebuke,  "  Ye  know  not 
what  manner  of  spirit  ye  are  of,"  no  less  than  those 
disciples  who  proposed  to  chastise  by  fire  from 
heaven  the  impiety  of  the  Samaritan  village.  For 
in  any  point  that  affects  the  present  question,  let 
any  one  draw  a  distinction  between  the  two  cases 
who  can.  The  language  of  the  church,  in  primi- 
tive times,  was,  what  it  ought  to  be  always,  and 
what  that  of  all  voluntary  societies  is,  "join  our 
society,  or  not,  as  you  please  ;  leave  it  when  you 
please  :  but  if  you  choose  to  belong  to  it,  you  must 
practise  and  submit  to  all  that  it  appoints." 

In  an  evil  hour  did  the  church  first  employ  the 
"  arm  of  flesh"  to  enforce  her  decrees.  Every 
church  which  does  so,  in  the  same  degree  in  which 
she  does  it  is  transgressing  the  fundamental  law  of 
a  kingdom  which  is  not  of  this  world ;  and  she 
never  fails  to  weaken  her  own  proper  spiritual  au- 
thority in  the  same  degree.  Deservedly  is  she 
crippled,  like  David  clad  in  the  false  protection  of 
Saul's  armour,  which,  instead  of  defending  him, 
served  only  to  impede  his  motions.  Let  her  cast 
it  off,  and  go  forth,  like  him,  in  the  name  of  the 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        73 

Lord,  and  with  a  sling  and  a  stone  she  will  quell 
the  gigantic  force  of  the  uncircumcised  ! 

I  have  said  that  the  church  is  crippled  rather 
than  protected  by  this  unfitting  aid.  Her  own 
legitimate  authority  is  impaired  by  calling  in  the 
help  of  the  secular  power.  In  the  case,  for  in- 
stance, which  I  have  been  just  now  speaking  of, 
that  of  excommunication,  the  civil  penalties  and 
disabilities  annexed  to  it  prevent  you  from  inflict- 
ing it  when  you  ought.  The  sentence  involves  a 
man's  civil  rights,  over  which  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
state  to  watch.  He  has,  therefore,  a  right  to  ap- 
peal to  the  temporal  power  to  try  the  justice  of  his 
sentence,  and  you  are  liable  to  have  it  reversed  by 
an  extraneous  authority.  But  suppose  it  confirmed,' 
it  is  an  odious  and  unpopular  thing  for  the  govern- 
ors of  the  church  to  interfere  with  the  rights  of  the 
citizen.  I  mention  this,  not  as  being  really  the 
main  objection,  but  as  being,  in  practice,  the  one 
which  I  believe  the  most  frequently  operates  to 
prevent  the  passage  of  such  a  sentence.  The  real 
objection  is,  that  since  it  involves  a  temporal  pen- 
alty, it  is  essentially  unjust :  it  is  not  merely  con- 
sidered as  persecution,  but  it  actually  is  such.  And 
thus  it  is,  that  in  a  multitude  of  cases  you  become 
actually  hound,  as  a  duty  to  your  great  Master,  to 
excommunicate,  and  not  to  excommunicate  the 
very  same  individual.  Suppose  him  a  grievous 
offender,  as  a  heretic  and  breeder  of  divisions  in 
the  church,  you  are  clearly  bound  by  St.  Paul's  in- 
junction, if  he  continue  in  the  offence  "  after  the 

G 


74        AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

first  and  second  admonition,  to  reject  him ;"  yet, 
again,  since  in  so  doing  you  subject  him  to  the 
temporal  penalties  annexed,  with  your  consent  by 
the  civil  power,  to  excommunication,  it  is  equally 
plain  that  you  are  bound,  by  the  prohibition  of  all 
persecution — that  is,  all  employment  of  coercion 
in  religious  matters — to  abstain  from  pronouncing 
that  sentence.  And  the  same  takes  place  in  a 
multitude  of  other  instances ;  so  that  it  is  matter 
of  absolute  demonstration  that  the  church  cannot 
possibly,  when  thus  aided  by  the  secular  power, 
enjoy  and  exercise  the  authority  which  Christ  has 
given  her,  according  to  his  intentions. 

It  is  not  the  state,  but  the  church,  not  the  tem- 
poral, but  the  spiritual  governors,  that  are  to  be 
blamed  for  these  ill  consequences.  Ignorance  of 
the  character  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  surely  more 
excusable  in  a  civil  magistrate  than  in  an  ecclesi- 
astical ruler.  If  these  last  do  not  refuse  and  pro- 
test against — much  more  if  they  invite — the  inter- 
ference of  the  other  in  spiritual  concerns,  they  are 
responsible  for  the  results  of  such  interference. 
And  one  of  these  results,  which  is  inevitable  and 
obvious,  is,  that  you  thus  resign  the  independent 
authority  of  the  church.  By  borrowing  the  power 
of  another,  you  give  up  part  of  your  own  :  having 
called  in  the  aid  of  the  secular  arm,  you  have 
fully  authorized  the  state  to  walch  over  and  con- 
trol your  administration  of  that  discipline  which 
is  backed  by  her  authority.  The  civil  power  has 
given  you,  as  it  were,  the  protection  of  a  garrison 


AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH.        75 

of  her  own  soldiers,  commanded,  of  course,  by  her 
own  officers,  who  owe  allegiance  to  her:  what 
sort  of  independence,  think  you,  does  a  city  enjoy 
which  has  the  advantage  of  such  a  foreign  garri- 
son ?  The  church,  in  short,  is  thus  placed  in  the 
condition  of  the  horse  in  the  fable,  who,  for  the 
sake  of  chastising  his  enemy  the  stag,  called  in  to 
his  assistance  a  man,  whom  he  sullered  to  mount 
on  his  back,  and  who  found  him  ever  after  a  very 
useful  slave.  The  civil  power,  in  like  manner, 
when  once  called  in  as  an  ally,  may  be  expected 
to  keep  its  seat,  and,  after  having  helped  to  put 
down  heretics  and  schismatics,  to  employ  the 
church  for  its  own  purposes. 

The  only  exception  to  this  rule  is  the  converse 
case  ;  that  of  the  church  prevailing  over  the  state, 
by  contriving  to  encroach  on  the  secular  power 
to  a  greater  degree  than  the  secular  power  does 
on  her,  till  in  time  she  is  able  to  assume  a  complete 
temporal  dominion.  Thus  it  is  that  that  adulter- 
ous church,  the  Babylonish  harlot,  seated  herself 
"  on  the  back  of  the  beast"  and  succeeded  in  estab- 
lishing that  monstrous  and  impious  anomaly,  a 
secular  hierarchy — a  kind  of  false  theocracy — the 
empire  of  the  popish  see.  But  this  case  differs,  in 
fact,  but  very  little  from  the  other,  as  far  as  the 
present  case  is  concerned :  when  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  civil  powers  are  intermixed,  and  their 
several  provinces  confusedly  blended  together; 
when  mutual  interference  and  encroachment  have 
taken  place,  it  signifies  comparatively  little  which 


76        AUTHORITY  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

of  the  two  parties  gains,  on  the  whole,  an  ascend- 
ency over  the  other:  the  principles  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom  are  equally  violated  by  the  usur- 
pations of  the  church  or  of  the  state  on  each 
other's  dominions;  nor  can  any  particular  church 
expect  that  he  "  will  be  with  them  always,"  and 
bestow  his  full  blessing  on  their  transactions,  as 
long  as  they,  on  their  part,  are  not  completely 
"with  him  ;"  as  long  as  they  do  not  fully  comply 
with  his  injunctions,  by  trusting  to  him  alone 
whose  "kingdom  is  not  from  hence." 

The  church  may,  indeed,  as  I  have  said,  de- 
mand protection  for  her  members  by  the  civil 
power,  not  only  from  persecution,  but  from  insults 
and  libels  ;  but,  then,  this  is  demanded  for  them, 
not  as  orthodox  Christians,  but  as  peaceable  citi- 
zens, a  Mohammedan  or  a  pagan  having  an  equal 
right  to  it.  And  the  state  may  require,  in  return* 
not  only  of  Christians,  but  of  all  her  subjects, 
both  that  they  would  obey  her  laws,  and  also  that 
they  would  abstain  from  inculcating  disobedience 
to  her  and  resistance  to  the  "  powers  that  be." 
Every  assumption,  by  either  community,  of  any- 
thing beyond  this,  is  an  encroachment  on  the  rights 
of  the  other. 

It  may  be  said,  however,  and  has  been  said, 
that  though  the  two  societies  are  distinct,  and  are 
naturally  and  originally  independent  of  each  oiher, 
so  that  neither  of  them  has  any  natural  ?nght  of 
control  in  the  affairs  of  the  other,  they  are  yet 
competent,  like  any  other  two  societies,  to  form 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.      77 

an  alliance,  and  to  concede  each  to  the  other  some 
part  of  its  own  rights  in  exchange  for  sonne  of 
those  belonging  to  the  other  party.  This  opinion 
I  will  consider  in  my  next  letter. 


LETTER  IV. 

on  the  allliance  of  church  and  state. 
My  dear , 


I  REMARKED  in  my  last  letter  that  two  inde- 
pendent or  sovereign  communities  may  be  com- 
petent to  form  an  alliance  for  their  mutual  benefit, 
by  agreeing  to  impart  to  each  other,  reciprocally, 
some  portion  of  their  respective  rights.  Thus, 
two  independent  states,  for  instance,  though  neither 
of  them  has  originally  any  claim  on  the  territory 
of  th  J  other,  may  agree,  the  one,  we  will  suppose, 
to  allow  the  other  a  right  of  way  through  her  do- 
minions, and  the  other,  in  return,  the  use  of  her 
shores  to  the  mariners  of  the  first,  for  drawing  up 
their  small  craft,  landing  their  goods,  and  drying 
their  nets.  And  if  one  of  these  contracting  parlies 
should  think  fit,  in  exchange  for  defence  against 
an  enemy,  or  support  during  a  famine,  to  resign 
to  the  other  her  independent  sovereignty,  and  to 
be  enrolled  thenceforth  as  a  province  of  it,  no  one 
g2 


78  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

could  dispute  the  lawfulness  and  validity  of  the 
contract. 

The  question  now  before  us  is,  whether  the 
church  and  the  state  be  communities  which  may 
allowably  form  such  an  alliance.  The  question 
as  to  the  expediency  of  such  alliance  must  present 
itself  in  the  second  place  to  those  who  decide  the 
former  question  in  the  affirmative;  if  that  be 
decided  in  the  negative,  the  question  of  expediency 
is  superseded. 

Bishop  Warburton  is  allowed,  I  believe,  to  be 
the  most  powerful  advocate  for  the  alliance  of 
church  and  state.  Dr.  Paley  (who,  however,  is 
favourable  to  an  established  religion)  is  uncon- 
vinced by  his  arguments,  though  he  does  not  en- 
ter into  any  particular  examination  of  them,  but 
merely  contends  generally,  that  all  attempts  "to 
make  the  church  an  engine,  or  even  an  ally  of 
the  state,"  are  at  variance  with  its  fundamental 
principles. 

As  I  am  about  to  enter  the  lists  against  so 
able  a  champion  as  Warburton,  it  may  be  proper 
to  point  out,  in  the  first  instance,  the  strong  coin- 
cidence which  exists  between  our  opinions  with 
respect  to  most  of  the  principles  I  have  already 
laid  down,  though  they  have  led  us,  in  the  point 
now  under  consideration,  to  opposite  conclusions. 
Indeed,  I  have  actually  borrowed  from  himself 
many,  and  may  appear  to  have  borrowed  more, 
of  the  very  arguments  which  seem  to  me  to  weigh 
against  his  theory.     In  the  first  book  of  his  *'  Al- 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  79 

liance"  he  remarks  (p.  50,  51),  "In  after  ages, 
when  the  Roman  emperors  became  Christian, 
agreeably  to  the  zeal  of  new  converts,  they  made 
the  civil  institutes  religious,  by  introducing  laws 
against  sin ;  in  which,  as  they  were  told  by  their 
teachers,  they  were  not  only  authorized,  but  di- 
rected, by  the  examples  and  precepts  of  that  Scrip- 
ture which  they  professed  to  believe.  This  greatly 
contributed  to  confound  the  distinction  between  a 
church  and  state.  Howev^er,  this  false  judgment 
did  not  owe  its  birth  to  the  Christian  religion, 
where  this  distinction  is  so  marked  out  and  en- 
forced as  not  easily  to  be  mistaken,  but  to  the 
Jewish,  in  which  those  societies  were  consolidated 
and,  as  it  were,  incorporated.  For  there  they 
saw,  in  a  civil  policy  instituted  by  God  himself, 
and,  therefore,  to  be  esteemed  most  perfect,  and, 
of  course,  worthy  the  imitation  of  all  magistrates 
who  professed  themselves  the  servants  of  that 
God  ;  they  saw,  I  say,  sins  and  crimes  equally 
within  the  magistrate's  jurisdiction.  They  did 
not  reflect  that  Ma^  jurisdiction  was  the  necessary 
consequence  of  a  theocracy,  a  form  of  government 
different  in  kind  from  all  human  policies  what- 
ever." In  p.  62  he  says,  "Religion  thus  com- 
posing a  society,  we  are  now  to  consider  what 
kind  of  society  it  is.  First,  then,  it  must  needs 
be  sovereign,  and  independent  on  the  civil."  And 
p.  65,  *'  this  independent  religious  society  hath  not, 
in  and  of  itself,  any  coercive  power  of  the  civil 
kind  ;  its  inherent  jurisdiction  being,  in  its  nature 


80  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

and  use,  entirely  different  fronn  that  of  the  state." 
P.  r>7,  "As  the  immediate  end  of  religious  society 
is  purity  of  worship ;  and  as  a  necessary  means  of 
preserving  that  purity  is  uniformity  of  worship, 
which  cannot  be  maintained  but  by  expelling  from 
the  community  all  who  refuse  to  comply  with 
what  is  publicly  established,  therefore  this  power 
of  expulsion  in  every  religious  society  is  most  fit 
and  useful.  But  we  go  farther,  and  say,  that 
every  kind  of  society,  whatever  be  its  end  or 
means,  must  necessarily,  as  it  is  a  society,  have 
this  power  of  expulsion  ;  it  is  a  power  inseparable 
from  the  very  being  of  society,  which  can  subsist 
only  in  the  conformity  of  the  will  of  each  natural 
member  to  the  will  of  that  artificial  body  which 
society  produces;  this  being  violated,  as  it  must 
be  unless  all  contraveners  be  expelled,  the  society 
dissolves,  and  falls  back  again  into  nothing."  P. 
68,  "iV/o?'e  coercive  power  than  this  is  both  unfit 
and  unjust  to  be  exercised  by  a  religious  society." 

Thus  much  may  suffice  to  show  that  I  have 
neither  the  arrogance  to  disregard  the  opinions  of 
so  illustrious  a  writer,  nor  the  misfortune  to  differ 
from  him  altogether. 

To  examine  in  detail  every  part  of  the  Inge- 
nious work  in  question  would  require  a  considera- 
ble volume  ;  nor  is  it  at  all  necessary  for  my  pur- 
pose to  do  so;  since,  in  fact,  a  very  great  pro- 
portion of  his  arguments  tend,  as  I  shall  presently 
show,  to  establish  my  own  conclusion.  They 
have  the  effect  of  knitting  and  compacting  together 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  81 

the  several  parts  of  his  system  so  firmly,  that  if 
any  part  of  it  be  demolished,  the  whole  must  fall 
together.  He  proves  so  satisfactorily  what  con- 
sequences flow  from  the  alliance  of  church  and 
state,  that  if  even  any  one  of  these  consequences 
can  be  shown  to  be  destructive  of  the  character  of 
Christ's  kingdom,  the  lawfulness  of  the  alliance 
itself  is  overthrown  by  a  "  reductio  ad  ahsurdum,^^ 

It  may  be  advisable,  however,  to  suggest  some 
further  considerations  (though  without  professing 
to  exhaust  the  subject)  beyond  what  is  in  strictness 
necessary  to  prove  the  point  in  question,  and  to 
point  out  some  ill  consequences  not  contemplated 
by  Warburton,  but  which  have  actually  resulted, 
and  must  alvi^ays  be  expected  to  result,  from  the 
system  he  is  defending. 

Before  I  proceed  further,  however,  it  may  be  as 
well  to  premise  one  remark  (though,  in  so  doing,  I 
anticipate  part  of  what  will  presently  be  said), 
which  may  be  necessary  to  obtain  a  hearing  for  my 
arguments ;  not  from  you^  indeed,  or  from  any  one 
else  who  is  ready  to  follow  the  right,  wherever  it  may 
lead ;  but  from  some  of  those  to  whom  you  may 
think  fit  to  communicate  what  I  have  said.  I  be- 
lieve that  a  great  part  of  those  who  accede  to 
Warburton's  theory  are  influenced  by  the  consid- 
eration that  the  rejection  of  it  implies  the  rejection 
of  an  established  religion  ;  and  that  the  Church  of 
England,  if  she  resign  his  principles,  must  forth- 
with resign  all  her  property  also,  together  with  all 
right  of  ever  holding  any.     This,  indeed,  is  more 


82  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

than  insinuated  all  along  by  Warburton  himself; 
but  Paley,  who  protests  against  the  notion  of  an 
alliance^  does  not  admit  this  consequence.  I  do 
not,  indeed,  entirely  coincide  in  opinion  with  cither 
of  these  great  men  ;  but  my  principles,  as  will  be 
shown  in  the  next  letter,  are  not  at  variance  with 
the  existence  of  a  religious  establishment,  in  a  cer- 
tain sense,  and  in  a  sense  which  admits  the  retain- 
ment  by  the  church  of  all  her  property. 

But  to  return  :  Warburton,  it  should  be  observed, 
in  the  first  place,  understood  well  the  character  of 
the  Jewish  theocracy,  as  being  not  an  alliance  of 
church  and  state,  but  an  amalgamation  of  the  two 
into  one  institution.  He  perceived,  and  has  clearly 
pointed  out,  that  the  very  notion  of  an  alliance  be- 
tween tlie  two  communities  implies  the  disiinct 
character  of  the  two,  and  the  original  and  natural 
independency  of  each  on  the  other.  But  he  con- 
tends that  they,  as  two  independent  communities, 
may  and  do  lawfully  form  a  compact  for  the  mu- 
tual interchange  of  their  respective  rights.  Now 
this,  he  must  admit,  holds  good  in  such  cases  only 
where  the  rights  which  the  one  party  (whether  in- 
dividual or  community)  resigns  are  uo\.  in  defeasible 
rights,  and  are  such  as  the  other  can  lawfully  ex- 
ercise.  The  word  "  indefeasible"  is  frequently 
used  by  slovenly  writers  or  speakers  in  a  sense 
which  does  not  belong  to  it,  or  without  any  distinct 
meaning  at  all ;  but  to  you  I  need  scarcely  remark, 
that  an  *'  indefeasible  right"  signifies  one  of  which 
the  party  cannot  divest  himself;  which  is  his  to 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  83 

keep,  but  not  his  to  part  with.  Such  are  the  mu- 
tual rights,  for  instance,  of  married  persons:  a  man 
cannot  lawfully  dispose  of  his  wife,  although  she 
be  hiSy  to  another  person  ;  nor  renounce  his  claim 
and  abandon  her.  And  the  same  rule  holds  good 
in  many  other  instances.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
man's  right  to  his  estate,  though  maintainable 
against  all  other  men,  is  defeasible  ;  that  is,  he  is  at 
full  liberty  to  sell  it  or  give  it  away. 

Now  1  contend  that  the  rights  which  the  church 
resigns  by  an  alliance  with  the  civil  power  are  in- 
defeasible ;  and  that  those  which  she  receives  fronn 
it  in  exchange  are  such  as  she  cannot  lawfully  ex- 
ercise.    Alliance  implies  mutual  control :  now  all 
control  of  the  church  in  secular  affairs,  and  of  the 
secular  power  in  things  relating  to  religion,  are  de- 
cidedly at  variance  with  the  character  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom.     For  it  should  be  remembered 
that  he  not  only  set  up  no  claim  to  temporal  power, 
but   he   also  refused  steadily  to  accept   it  when 
offered  to  him.     He   withdrew  from   those  who 
would  have  "taken  him  by  force  to  make  him  a 
king."    And  he  not  only  asserted  no  right  to  juris- 
diction of  a  secular  nature,  but  he  refused  to  be 
judge  in  an  appeal  which  was  freely  brought  before 
him.     And  when  the  Roman  governor,  desirous, 
as  it  should  seem,  to  acknowledge  him  as  a  tem- 
poral prince,  with  a  view  to  his  own  advancement, 
by  one  whose  supernatural  powers  he  must  have 
known  (for  how  else  can  we  account  for  the  anxiety 
of  so  unprincipled  a  man  to  save  him  ?)  when  Pi- 


84  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

late,  I  say,  eagerly  pressed  him  with  the  question, 
"Art  thou  a  king?"  he  disclaimed  any  other  than 
a  "kingdom  not  of  this  world  ;"  and  which,  conse- 
quently, precluded  all  exercise  of  force  by  his  ser- 
vants in  the  cause  of  their  King. 

Now,  can  any  man  of  candour  and  sound  judg- 
ment really  think  it  compatible  with  ihe  notion  of 
such  a  kingdom,  that  the  supreme  ecclesiastical 
ruler — the  governor,  not  merely  of  Christians  as 
individual  citizens,  and  in  respect  to  temporalities, 
but  of  the  Christian  church,  as  a  spiritual  commu- 
nity— should  be  (not  accidentally  and  occasionally, 
but)  necessarily,  constantly,  and  ex-officio,  the  civil 
magistrate?  Yet  this  is,  as  Warburton  has,  I 
think,  satisfactorily  proved,  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  an  alliance  of  church  and  state.  It  is  a 
case  in  which,  as  he  observes,  one  of  the  two  com- 
munities must  resign  its  independence,  and  submit 
to  be  governed  by  the  supreme  head  of  the  other. 
He  docs  not,  indeed,  {»ffer  any  proof  that  this  one 
must  necessarily  be  the  state  ;  nor  can  I  perceive 
but  that  his  requsitions  might  be  equally  well  com- 
plied with  by  making  the  ecclesiastical  head  (as  at 
Rome)  supreme  over  the  state  ;  by  giving,  for  in- 
stance, the  bishops  the  nomination  of  the  king  and 
of  the  members  of  parliament,  as  well  as  by  giving 
these  the  nomination  of  bishops,  and  a  control  over 
their  proceedings.  I  am  considering,  you  will  ob- 
serve, which  party  has  the  better  right  to  claim  su- 
premacy over  the  other  (in  which  respect  I  think 
they  are  both  equal),  not  which  is  the  more  likely 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH  AND    STATE.  85 

to  obtain  it,  in  which  there  is  a  manifest  inequality. 
When  the  earthen  pot  and  the  iron  pot,  in  the  fable, 
are  floating  side  by  side  down  the  stream,  it  is  easy 
to  foresee  which  will  be  broken  when  they  are 
driven  together. 

This,  however,  does  not  affect  the  present  ques- 
tion ;  since  in  either  case,  equally,  the  supreme  ec- 
clesiastical ruler  must  necessarily  be  a  civil  ruler 
at  the  same  time :  and  it  is  this  that  destroys  the 
character  of  a  kingdom  not  of  this  world.  I  say 
*'  necessarily,"  because  the  accidental  union,  in  the 
same  individual,  of  offices  pertaining  to  different 
communities,  does  not  imply  a  transfer  of  rights 
from  the  one  community  to  the  other.  That  an 
individual  Christian,  whether  layman  or  minister, 
should  chance  to  be,  for  instance,  a  justice  of  the 
peace,  implies  no  alliance  or  mutual  interference 
between  the  two  societies^  any  more  than  the  Lin- 
naean  Society  could  be  said  to  be  invested  with 
political  power  if  its  president  and  some  of  its 
other  members  should  chance  to  have  a  seat  in  par- 
liament. 

That  the  state  should  impart  to  the  church  a 
coercive  power  which  does  not  naturally  belong  to 
her,  and  that  the  governors  of  the  church  should 
have  no  authority  to  "  administer,  transact,  or  de- 
cree anything  without  the  approbation  and  allow- 
ance of  her  supreme  head,  the  magistrate,"  are  con- 
sequences alike  deducible,  according  to  Warburton, 
from  the  "  alliance."  Now  there  is  a  presumption 
on  the  very  face  of  the  matter,  that  Jesus  Christ, 

H 


Ob  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

to  whom  "  all  power  was  delivered,  in  heaven  and 
in  earth,"  would  have  intrusted  his  disciples  with 
coercive  authority  had  he  intended  them  to  exer- 
cise it ;  and,  again,  that  he  or  his  apostles  would 
have  intrusted  ecclesiastical  authority  to  the  civil 
magistrates,  or,  at  least,  would  have  impowered 
the  governors  of  the  church  to  resign  into  secular 
hands  the  supreme  control  of  the  church  intrusted 
to  their  care,  had  it  been  his  will  that  this  should 
take  place.  We  need  not  even  look  for  (though  I 
think  we  should  find  it)  an  express  prohibition  of 
such  interference :  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the 
other  side ;  the  advocates  for  an  "  alliance"  are 
bound  to  show  an  express  permission ;  since  what- 
ever authority  the  spiritual  governors  claim  must 
be,  not  as  lords  paramount  and  owners  of  the  church, 
but  as  Christ's  delegates,  responsible  to  him  for  their 
trust.  If  the  king  appointed  any  one  governor  of 
a  fort,  what  would  he  say  to  him  if  he  should  sur- 
render the  keys  of  it  to  another,  for  the  sake  of 
some  supposed  benefit  to  his  master  ?  Would  he 
not  say  that  he  had  no  right  to  do  this  till  he  had 
received  express  permission  from  himself?  And 
with  respect  to  the  grant  of  coercive  power  to  the 
governors  of  the  church,  it  is  plain  that  it  must  be 
exercised  over  persons  and  in  cases  in  respect  of 
which  the  state  either  had  a  right  itself  to  exer- 
cise such  power,  or  had  it  not;  that  where  the 
magistrate  has  this  right,  it  belongs  to  him,  not  to 
ecclesiastical  officers,  to  exercise  it ;  where  he  has 
not  the  right,  he  cannot  surely  confer  on  another 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  87 

what  he  does  not  himself  possess.  It  seems  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  consequences  subversive  of 
Christ's  spiritual  kingdom  must  follow  from  the 
"  alliance"  contended  for  :  each  of  the  contracting 
parties  will  be  endowed  by  the  other  with  powers 
of  such  a  character  as  not  to  be  exercised  by  them 
without  contravening  the  designs  of  the  church's 
heavenly  Head  ;  powers  which  will,  on  both  sides, 
be  placed  in  the  most  unfitting  hands.  St.  Paul's 
direction  to  the  Corinthians  is,  that  their  secular 
causes  should  be  referred  to  the  arbitration  of  such 
among  the  brethren  as  were  the  least  eminent  for 
knowledge  and  judgment  in  spiritual  matters  (1 
Cor.  vi.,  4)  ;  "  If  ye  have  judgments  in  things  'per- 
taining to  this  life,  set  them  to  judge  who  are  least 
esteemed  in  the  church^  Such  a  one,  he  seems  to 
think,  might  very  well  be  '*  a  wise  man"  in  secular 
affairs,  and  '*  able  to  judge  between  his  brethren." 
It  is  not  necessary,  indeed,  that  Christians  should 
always  conform  literally  to  this  direction  ;  but  it  is 
undeniable  that  a  civil  magistrate,  and  a  very  good 
one,  too,  may  be,  and  often  is,  one  whose  studies 
and  habits  occasion  him  to  be  but  a  moderate  theo- 
logian, and  as  slenderly  qualified  as  any  other,  the 
least  esteemed  of  the  members  of  the  church,  to 
give  judgment  in  questions  of  doctrine  or  discipline. 
Yet  the  church  must,  according  to  Warburton, 
submit  in  everything  to  his  supreme  control,  neither 
ordaining  or  excommunicating  any  one  (which  last 
he  allows  to  be  a  right  essentially  inherent  in  every 
society),  nor  making  any  regulation,  nor,  in  short, 


88  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

doing  anything,  but  "  by  his  permission  and  with 
his  approbation."  What  would  have  been  the  as- 
tonishment and  indignation  of  St.  Paul  had  he  been 
informed  that  the  elders  whom  he  had  appointed 
over  the  church  at  Corinth  had  agreed  to  submit 
all  their  transactions  to  the  absolute  control  of  the 
persons  who  had  been,  according  to  his  directions, 
singled  out  as  the  most  unfit  for  such  control ;  those 
•*  least  esteemed  in  the  church  !" 

And  what,  after  all,  are  the  proposed  advantages 
to  the  church  which  are  to  compensate  for  the  ad- 
mission of  this  monstrous  alliance?  Warburton 
mentions  three,  as  all  that  can  be  in  any  way  con- 
sidered as  motives  to  induce  the  church  to  accept 
the  proffered  union  :  1st,  "Protection  by  the  state 
from  violence  ;"  2dly,  The  ''  propagation  of  the 
established  religion  by  force  ;"  and,  3dly,  "  Wealth 
and  honours  bestowed  by  the  state  on  the  spiritual 
rulers."  Of  these,  as  he  justly  observes,  the  second 
is  unjust,  and  the  third  impertinent ;  for,  with  re- 
spect to  this  last,  we  are  to  consider  (according  to 
his  most  judicious  distinction)  not  what  may  have 
been  the  actual  motives  that  have  influenced  church- 
men, but  what  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  legitimate  mo- 
tive for  the  church  itself,  regarded  as  a  spiritual 
community,  having  no  other  proposed  objects  than 
the  immediate  one  of  purity  of  worship,  and  the 
ultimate  one  of  salvation  of  souls  :  to  which  objects, 
wealth  and  honours  conferred  on  churchmen  do 
not  conduce.  The  only  legitimate  motive,  there- 
fore, according  to  him,  which  could  influence  the 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.      89 

church  to  accept  the  alliance,  is  the  desire  of  *'  ob- 
taining protection  from  violence ;"  and  this,  as  he 
himself  admits,  the  state  was  already  hound  in  jus- 
tice to  afford.  Now  can  that  be  ^fair  and  reason- 
able alliance  in  which  one  of  the  contracting  parties 
surrenders  to  the  other  part  of  his  just  rights,  in- 
cluding his  independence,  as  the  price  of  receiving 
what  was  already  his  due  ?  Is  it  not  more  like  the 
bargain  which  the  profligate  governor  Felix  thought 
to  conclude,  who  "  hoped  that  money  would  have 
been  given  him  to  set  free"  an  innocent  man  ? 

But  some  will  be  likely  to  say,  in  their  hearts  at 
least,  "  Do  we  not,  in  fact,  receive  a  quid  pro  quo  ? 
Are  not  the  rights  and  advantages  we  actually  re- 
ceive from  the  state  an  equivalent  for  what  we 
give  up?  And  are  these  temporal  advantages  to 
be  resigned  as  a  matter  of  indifference  ?"  Look  to 
the  example  of  your  Master:  he  had  an  offer 
made  him  of  an  exchange  of  a  similar  kind ;  and 
that  offer  and  his  rejection  of  it  are,  I  am  inclined 
to  think,  types  relating  to  his  church,  shadowing 
forth  both  the  temptations  which  would  be  placed  in 
her  way,  and  the  resistance  of  them  which  she  was 
bound  to  offer.  Satan  showed  him  all  the  king' 
doms  of  the  world,  and  the  glory  of  them,  and  said, 
"  All  these  are  mine,  and  unto  whomsoever  I  will 
I  give  them  ;  all  these  things,  therefore,  will  I  give 
thee,  if  thou  wilt  fall  down  and  worship  me."  To 
which  Jesus  replied,  *'  Get  thee  behind  me,  Satan  ! 
for  it  is  written,  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy 
God,  and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve." 
h2 


90  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

By  the  Romish  church  this  offer  has  clearly  been 
accepted.     "  Connive  at  and  sanction  all  the  suc- 
cessively arising  superstitions,  and  all  the  vices  of 
men,  v^^hich  are  the  adoration  I  require  ;  and  in  re- 
turn I  will  make  them  give  you  temporal  honour, 
and  wealth,  and  dominion  ;  you  shall  be  seated  on 
the  throne  of  the  seven  hills,  and  shall  mount  the 
many-headed  beast,  on  condition  that  you  admin- 
ister to  all  nations  the  cup  of  filthiness  of  fornica- 
tion (that  is,  of  departure  from  the  true  worship), 
which  is,  in  fact,  the  worship  of  me."     Such  is  the 
offer  that  has  been  made  to  her  who  calls  herself 
the  Catholic  church,  and  which  she  has  embraced. 
It  was,  in  truth,  Satan  who  first  proposed  an  alli- 
ance between  the  Christian  church  and  the  state, 
by  offering  temporal  advantages  in  exchange  for 
giving  up  some  of  the  "  things  that  be  God's,"  and 
which  we  ought  to  "render  unto  God,"  for  not 
'*  serving  him  only"  whom  only  we  ought  to  serve. 
The  next,  I  am  inclined  to  think,  who  proposed  to 
himself  this  scheme,  and  endeavoured  to  bring  it 
about,  was  Judas  Iscariot,  whose  design  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  the  destruction  of  his  Master, 
but  (as  West,  if  I  recollect,  has  shown)  his  tem- 
poral  exaltation,  by  putting  him  into  a  situation 
where  he  would  have  no  choice  left  but  to  submit 
to  death,  or  to  rescue  himself  b'y  such  a  display  of 
miraculous  powers  (of  which  the  traitor  could  not 
be  ignorant,  having  himself  exercised  them)  as 
would  induce  both  Jews  and  Romans  to  "  take  him 
by  force,  and  make  him  a  king,"    The  former  part 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.      91 

of  the  alternative  he  never  dreamed  would  be 
chosen  ;  whence  it  w^as,  probably,  that  he  came  to 
the  knowledge  of  what  he  had  been  doing,  and  was 
conscience-stricken,  as  soon  as  he  saw  that  Jesus 
was  condemned,  i.  e.,  cJiose  to  submit.  His  hope 
had  been,  probably,  to  be  both  pardoned  and  re- 
warded under  the  temporal  dominion  of  the  Mes- 
siah ;  the  "  alliance  of  church  and  state,"  which  he 
would  have  mainly  contributed,  though  by  pre- 
sumptuous disobedience,  to  bring  about. 

The  Protestant  churches  are,  indeed,  widely  dif- 
ferent from  the  Romish  in  the  points  I  have  been 
speaking  of.  It  is  their  boast  that  they  are  so ; 
but  I  fear  that  the  very  circumstance  of  the  just- 
ness, to  a  certain  degree,  of  the  boast,  has  in  some 
points  misled  them  ;  that  the  example  of  the  Romish 
church  may  have  done  them  harm,  from  the  very 
circumstance  (paradoxical  as  this  may  sound)  that 
they  have  not  followed  it.  The  enormities  of  an- 
other's conduct  may  tend,  though  we  abhor  them,  to 
lower  our  own  standard,  by  making  us  too  easily 
satisfied  with  ourselves,  if  we  are  but  much  better 
than  they.  And  thus  the  monstrous  usurpations  of 
the  Romish  hierarchy,  condemned  and  avoided  as 
they  are  by  the  reformed,  may  yet  have  somewhat 
debased  their  ideas  respecting  the  purely  spiritual 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  may  have  caused  them  to 
acquiesce  in,  or  even  entirely  to  overlook,  smaller 
corruptions  relative  to  ecclesiastical  discipline — 
minor  departures  of  Christ's  spouse  from  her  de- 
voted allegiance  to  him  ;  even  as  the  outrageous 


92  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

debaucheries  of  a  Messalina  may  serve  to  keep 
in  countenance  some  less  scandalous  adulteress. 
Whether  the  church  encroach  on  the  state  or  the 
state  on  the  church,  or  both  ;  and  whether  this 
encroachment  be  carried  to  the  utmost  excess  or 
not,  the  principles  of  Christ's  kingdom  are  infringed 
alike  in  each  case,  though  not  in  all  to  the  same  de- 
gree. And  I  scarcely  need  observe  to  you,  that 
how  seldom  soever  coercion  may  be  actually  em- 
ployed and  punishment  inflicted,  this  can  make 
no  difference  as  to  the  present  question.  He  who 
has  no  right  to  inflict  punishment  has  no  right  to 
threaten  it. 

I  will  oifer  but  one  more  observation  on  the 
system  of  an  author  with  whom  I  regret  to  differ ; 
and  to  the  greater  part  of  whose  arguments,  in  this 
very  treatise,  I  cordially  assent,  as  not  only  unan- 
swerable, but  also  strongly  confirmative  (for  the 
reasons  already  given)  of  my  own  views  on  the 
subject. 

The  motives  which  he  assigns  to  the  civil  power 
for  seeking  the  alliance  are,  I  think,  as  little  to  the 
purpose  as  those  of  the  church  for  accepting  that 
alliance.  They  are,  1st,  a  desire  of  "  preserving 
the  existence  and  the  purity  of  religion  ;  2dly,  of 
improving  its  usefulness,  and  applying  its  influence 
in  the  best  manner ;  and,  3dly,  of  preventing  the 
mischiefs  which  in  its  natural  independent  state  it 
might  occasion  to  society  ;"  mischiefs  which  I  will 
hereafter  show  there  is  no  reason  whatever,  under 
such  circumstances,  to  apprehend. 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.      93 

That  such  motives  may  have  actually  influenced 
civil  governors  is  highly  probable  ;  but  that,  as  our 
author  was  well  aware,  is  not  the  question  ;  he  is, 
like  myself,  considering,  not  what  is  likely  to  take 
place,  but  what  ought  to  take  place.  Now,  as  for 
the  preservation  of  our  religion  in  its  purity,  that 
the  interference  of  the  civil  magistrate  is  not  re- 
quired for  that  object,  any  one  may  at  once  con- 
vince himself  by  looking  at  the  primitive  ages  of 
the  church,  and  comparing  them  with  the  state  of 
things  after  the  empire  was  become  Christian,  and 
the  secular  authorities  took  a  part  in  ecclesiastical 
concerns.  Warburton's  argument,  which  is  some- 
what subtle,  turns  upon  this  :  that  truth  and  po- 
litical expediency  coincide  ;  and  that,  consequently, 
the  civil  magistrate  will  be  led,  with  a  view  to  his 
own  proper  object,  to  maintain  religious  truth. 
This  may  be  true  in  every  case  where  the  rulers  of 
the  state  are  quite  perfect,  both  in  head  and  heart ; 
and  it  is  equally  true,  that  whenever  they  are  not 
so  ;  whenever  they  are  under  the  influence  of  love 
of  glory,  covetousness  of  absolute  power,  false 
views  of  political  economy,  or  any  other  human 
vice  or  error,  since  their  views  of  expediency  will 
thus  receive  a  bias,  they  will  be  exactly  in  the  same 
degree  favourable  to  a  corrupt  religion.  Doctrines 
leading  to  fanatical  and  bloodthirsty  bigotry  will 
suit  the  views  of  one  political  leader  (such  as  the 
chiefs  of  the  French  "  League"  and  of  the  English 
commonwealth) ;  those  which  inculcate  slavish  sub- 
mission will  be  "  expedient"  to  another ;  nor  can 


94  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

there  be  any  conceivable  corruption  of  religion 
which  may  not  seem  "  useful"  (that  is,  conducive 
to  the  object  pursued)  to  some  civil  ruler  or  other. 
In  all  such  cases,  then,  secular  interference  will 
evidently  do  unmixed  harm  ;  and  when  the  inter- 
ference is  exercised  in  favour  of  a  pure  religion,  it 
will,  to  say  the  least,  do  more  harm  than  good; 
since  it  will  make  this  religion  appear  to  be  a  state 
contrivance ;  protected,  if  not  instituted,  for  the 
sake  of  its  utility,  not  of  its  truth  ;  and  its  profes- 
sors will  be  much  more  liable  to  be  regarded  as 
merely  professors,  complying,  in  their  outward  acts, 
with  the  commands  of  men,  not,  in  their  hearts, 
with  those  of  God. 

As  for  the  second  of  the  advantages  proposed, 
that  of  applying  the  influence  of  religion  to  the 
service  of  the  state,  the  object  ultimately  sought 
after,  that  of  really  securing  the  permanency  and 
furthering  the  prosperity  of  the  government,  will 
not  (as  I  hope  to  show  presently)  be  so  eflTectually 
secured  as  by  the  opposite  procedure ;  though  the 
immediate  object,  that  of  keeping  the  church,  her 
ministers,  and  her  discipline,  at  the  disposal  of  the 
civil  magistrate,  is,  I  admit,  very  likely  to  be  ob- 
tained: but  it  is  an  object  which  I  cannot  charac- 
terise otherwise  than  as  a  profane  degradation  of 
our  holy  religion  into  a  tool  of  those  in  power  for 
the  time  being.  It  is  Warburton's  own  remark, 
that  even  a  tyrant  may  thus  gain  veneration  and 
obedience.  And  he  adds,  shortly  after,  that  "  there 
are  peculiar  conjunctures  when  the  influence  of  re- 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  96 

ligion  is  more  than  ordinarily  serviceable  to  the 
state,  which  the  magistrate  cannot  so  well  improve 
to  the  public  advantage  unless  he  have  the  church 
under  his  direction,  to  prescribe  such  public  exer- 
cises of  religion  as  the  exigences  of  the  state  re- 
quire." In  plain  English,  he  may  prescribe  "  Te 
Deums"  and  fasts  whenever  it  suits  his  purposes ; 
engage  Christian  ministers  to  preach  down  his  po- 
litical opponents  ;  obtain  acquiescence  in  his  meas- 
ures, just  or  unjust,  on  pain  of  damnation;  and 
hurl  against  his  enemies  the  terrors  of  the  next 
world  in  addition  to  those  of  the  sword.  Belshaz- 
zar's  profanation  of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  Tem- 
ple at  an  idolatrous  feast  was  nothing  to  this  !  One 
would  think  the  good  bishop  had  forgotten  on  which 
side  he  was  writing.  If  any  one  be  convinced,  by 
such  an  argument,  of  anything  but  the  danger  to 
Christ's  religion,  by  placing  it  thus  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  civil  governor,  I  can  devise  no  process 
of  reasoning  that  is  likely  to  undeceive  him. 

With  regard  to  the  last  point,  the  mischiefs  to 
the  state  likely  to  be  occasioned  by  the  church  in 
its  natural  independent  condition,  it  is  to  be  re- 
marked, that  his  arguments,  which  certainly  do 
appear,  at  first  sight,  to  have  considerable  weight, 
will,  according  to  his  view,  prove  too  much. 
They  go  to  establish  a  conclusion  which  he 
strongly  disclaims,  viz.,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
civil  power  utterly  to  put  down  by  force  all  but 
th^  established  religion.  For  he  dwells  much  on 
the  power  and  influence  which  the  ministers  and 


96  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

leaders  of  a  church  have  over  it  in  its  independent 
condition,  and  of  tlie  danger  (a  danger  which  he 
apprehends  on  false  grounds,  and  in  the  wrong 
place)  that  they  should,  under  that  cover,  "  hatch 
and  carry  on  designs  against  the  peace  of  society.'* 
Now  I  have  already  observed,  in  a  former  letter, 
that  the  state  has  a  natural  right  to  punish  all 
seditious  doctrines ;  all  inculcation  of  principles 
avowedly  inconsistent  with  the  good  order  of 
society.  But  this  will  not  satisfy  him,  unless  all 
this  influence  of  the  ministers  of  religion  be  thrown 
into  the  hands  of  the  civil  power,  by  placing  them 
directly  under  its  control ;  and  he  quotes,  in 
favour  of  this  opinion,  the  words  of  that  unhappy 
prince,  who,  in  all  probability  (as  I  will  presently 
show),  owed  to  it  the  loss  of  his  crown  and  his 
life :  "  Touching  the  government  of  the  church 
by  bishops,  the  common  jealousie  hath  been,  that 
I  am  earnest  and  resolute  to  maintain  it,  not  so 
much  out  of  piety  as  policy  and  reason  of  state. 
Wherein  so  far,  indeed,  reason  of  state  doth  induce 
me  to  approve  that  government  above  any  other, 
as  I  find  it  impossible  for  a  prince  to  preserve  the 
state  in  quiet,  unless  he  hath  such  an  influence 
upon  churchmen,  and  they  such  a  dependance  on 
him,  as  may  best  restraine  the  seditious  exorbi- 
tances of  minister's  tongues,  who,  with  the  keys 
of  heaven,  have  so  far  the  keys  of  the  peoples' 
hearts,  as  they  prevail  much  by  their  oratory  to 
let  in  or  shut  out  both  peace  and  loyalty."  Now 
the  magistrate,  by  "  admitting  and  excluding  to 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.      97 

the  exercise  of  their  function  such  ministers  as  he 
thinks  fit,"  has  certainly  a  great  control  over  the 
members  of  that  church  which  he  so  governs;  but 
what  influence  will  this  give  him  over  dissenters? 
Their  ministers  v^'ill  have  all  that  independent 
influence  over  their  flocks  from  which  he  dreads 
such  danger  to  the  state.  But  why  should  it  be 
expected  that  this  influence  should  be  exerted  in 
hostility  to  the  existing  government  ?  I  see  no 
reason  to  apprehend  this,  as  long  as  the  church  is 
left  in  its  original  independent  condition ;  but  a» 
soon  as  the  civil  magistrate  identifies  himself  with 
the  church,  to  which  dissenters  are  necessarily 
opposed,  by  making  himself  the  head  of  their 
adversaries,  he  himself  makes  them  his  enemies. 
The  alliance  of  church  and  state  necessarily 
drives  the  enemies  of  the  church  ^o  be  enemies 
of  the  state  likewise  ;  and  thus  occasions  the  very 
evil  from  which  it  professes  to  secure  us.  This 
is  no  imaginary  case.  Experience  has  shown 
that  the  religion  of  the  Presbyterians  is  not  neces- 
sarily hostile  to  the  British  constitution ;  but  the 
blow  which  it  aimed  at  the  Church  of  England 
in  the  reign  of  Charles  \.  necessarily  joassec?  through 
the  sides  of  the  regal  power,  because  the  regal 
power  stood  before  it  as  an  ally.  Being  the 
natural  enemies  of  the  church,  they  were  made 
enemies  of  the  state,  and  it  is  possible  they  might 
not  have  resorted  to  violent  means  had  the  church 
possessed  no  coercive  power,  but  might  have  been 
content  to  employ  arguments,  when  arguments 
I 


98  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

alone  were  opposed  to  them.  At  any  rate,  they 
would  have  had  no  excuse  for  so  acting;  but 
when  the  church  is  endued  with  coercive  power 
she  loses  her  privilege,  and  must  expect  that 
coercive  power  will  be  employed  against  her. 
"  Put  up  thy  sword  into  its  sheath  ;  for  all  they 
that  lake  the  sword  shall  perish  by  the  sword" 

If,  therefore,  the  magistrate  would  eflfectually 
preclude,  instead  of  increasing,  the  danger  in  ques- 
tion, he  must  do  his  work  thoroughly  ;  he  must  not 
only  prohibit,  but  completely  extirpate,  by  a  vig- 
orous persecution,  all  religions  except  the  one  es- 
tablished. Half  measures  generally  defeat  both  of 
the  objects  they  aim  at.  "  Dismiss  your  prisoners 
without  ransom,"  said  the  old  Samnite  to  Pontius, 
the  general  who  had  captured  a  Roman  army  ; 
*' if  this  does  not  please  you,  kill  them  all:  take 
away  either  their  will  or  their  power  to  hurt 
you ;"  instead  of  this,  he  made  them  pass  under 
the  yoke,  and  dismissed  them  ardent  and  implaca- 
ble foes. 

Some  reasons  against  the  "alliance"  itself  I 
have  offered  ;  for  reasons  against  the  measures 
which  in  sound  policy  are  inseparable  from  it — 
penal  laws  against  dissenters — you  cannot  be  bet- 
ter referred  to  any  one  than  to  its  advocate,  War- 
burton  himself. 

I  will  only  add,  respecting  this  point,  that,  inde- 
pendent of  the  impolicy f  universally,  of  an  alliance, 
unaccompanied  with  the  prohibition  of  dissent, 
such  alliance  must  also  be  accounted  null  and  void, 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  99 

if  a  toleration,  which  did  not  exist  from  the  first, 
were,  by  the  state,  subsequently  granted.  If,  when 
the  king  became  supreme  ecclesiastical  governor 
of  the  church,  he,  at  the  same  time,  enforced  penal 
laws  against  papists  and  dissenters,  and  declared 
his  resolution  to  allow  of  no  departure  from  the  re- 
ligion he  established,  that  must  be  understood  as 
one  of  the  conditions  of  the  implied  contract  (and 
it  is  only  an  implied  contract  that  is  contended 
for) ;  the  church  must  be  supposed  to  have  resigned 
her  independency  with  an  understanding  that  the 
civil  sword  should  be  employed  (as  it  was)  to  en- 
force conformity.  The  magistrate,  therefore,  has 
no  right  to  relax  these  laws  (however  inexpedient, 
and  however  unjust)  without,  at  the  same  time,  re- 
signing his  supremacy,  and  placing  the  church  in 
her  natural  independent  condition  ;  and  if  she  then 
choose  to  accede  to  afresh  compact,  all  is  fair  ;  but 
otherwise,  to  retain  what  you  have  got  by  a  com- 
pact, and  yet  plead  scruples  of  conscience  against 
fulfilling  its  conditions  ;  to  withdraw  the  coercive 
requisition  of  conformity,  and  yet  to  hold  the  su- 
preme control  which  was  submitted  to  on  that  con- 
sideration, is  to  act  like  a  profligate  elector,  who 
keeps  the  bribe  he  had  received,  but  pleads  that 
his  tender  conscience  will  not  allow  him  to  vote  as 
he  had  engaged.  Let  him  return  the  money,  and 
then  vote  according  to  his  conscience.  Even  Ju- 
das, when  he  came  to  a  sense  of  his  iniquity,  and 
was  anxious,  if  possible,  to  recall  it,  did  not  go 
empty-handed  to  the  high-priests  to  say,  "  I  have 


100  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND   STATE. 

sinned,"  but  he  "  brought  again  the  thirty  pieces 
of  silver" 

It  may  be  said,  however,  by  sonne,  that  though 
it  be  allowed  that  the  alliance  is  not  altogether 
justifiable,  still  no  evils  have,  in  fact,  ever  resulted 
from  it  that  are  at  all  comparable  with  those  which 
would  have  been  incurred  had  the  church  met  with 
opposition,  or  even  with  mere  neglect,  from  the 
state.  I  much  doubt  the  truth  of  this  assertion,  if 
by  ''  evils*'  is  to  be  understood,  not  merely  tem- 
poral sufferings  or  privations  of  individuals,  but 
evils  to  the  church,  as  a  church  ;  such  as  corrup- 
tion of  faith,  decay  of  piety,  &c.  But,  be  this  as 
it  may,  whatever  evils  take  place  without  your 
sanction,  immediate  or  remote,  you  are  at  least 
not  responsible  for  ;  whereas,  every  one  is  respon- 
sible for  such  as  he  has  helped  to  introduce.  If  the 
magistrate  thought  fit,  of  his  own  pleasure  and  by 
his  own  authority,  to  persecute  the  orthodox  faith, 
and  to  violate,  in  any  way,  the  sanctity  of  the 
church,  he  alone  must  bear  the  blame,  fall  the  suf- 
fering  where  it  will.  Let  Christ  be  implored  to 
defend  and  rescue,  in  his  good  time,  his  own  inher- 
itance, when  he  shall  judge  that  his  servants  have 
been  sufficiently  tried.  But  if  the  church  herself 
allows  and  impowers  the  magistrate  to  interfere, 
she  must  be  responsible  for  all  the  evil  conse- 
quences that  may  follow  ;  nay,  more  than  that,  for 
all  that  do  not  follow,  if  they  be  such  as  by  her 
own  act  and  deed  she  has  exposed  herself  to.  If 
the  trees  give  the  woodman  a  handle  to  his  axe, 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  101 

they  have,  in  fact,  permitted  the  destruction  not 
only  of  such  as  he  fells,  but  of  those  also  which, 
at  his  own  pleasure,  he  has  left  standing.  If  spir- 
itual rulers  leave,  for  instance,  the  liturgy  to  the 
discretion  of  the  civil  magistrate,  ihey  not  only 
give  their  sanction  to  all  that  he  chooses  it  shall 
contain,  but  virtually  to  all  that  he  might  insert. 
Should  he  put  into  it  the  ravings  of  Swedenborg, 
I  do  not  see  on  what  grounds  they  could  complain 
that  he  had  exceeded  the  discretion  with  which 
they  had  intrusted  him.  And  they  are  even  mor- 
ally responsible  for  errors  of  judgment  in  him,  with 
regard  to  the  affairs  of  the  church.  If,  indeed, 
they  decree  anything  amiss,  yet,  according  to  the 
best  of  their  judgment,  they  will  stand  acquitted 
before  God  for  their  error;  but  not  so  if  anything 
amiss  be  done  by  the  civil  magistrate,  to  whom 
they  have,  without  permission  from  their  Master, 
transferred  the  power  with  which  they  had  been 
intrusted.  If  a  pilot  to  whom  the  conduct  of  a 
ship  is  committed,  through  mere  error  of  judgment 
steers  it  on  a  shoal,  he  is  not  morally  answerable 
for  the  wreck  ;  but  if  he  puts  the  rudder  into  the 
hands  of  a  common  mariner,  who,  by  an  error  in 
judgment,  wrecks  the  ship,  then  the  pilot  is  respon- 
sible ;  and,  more  than  this,  he  will  have  been  guilty 
of  a  dereliction  of  duty,  even  though  the  vessel 
should  chance  to  escape  ;  according  to  the  vulgar 
but  expressive  phrase,  "it  is  no  thanks  to  him." 
Let  all  endeavours  be  used,  indeed,  to  make  every 
individual  member  of  the  state  a  member,  and  a 
I  2 


102  ALLIANCE    OP    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

worthy  member,  of  the  church  likewise.  Such 
an  alhance,  if  it  is  to  be  so  called,  of  church  and 
state,  has  no  warmer  advocate  than  myself;  but 
whether  this  be  brought  about  or  no,  let  the  two 
corporate  bodies,  even  though  composed  of  the 
same  materials,  be  kept  distinct  and  independent. 
Let  Christ's  kingdom  be  in  this  world,  but  not  of  it. 

As  for  the  evils,  then,  which  might  have  arisen 
for  want  of  the  "alliance"  in  countries  where  it 
has  taken  place,  though  no  one  can  do  more  than 
conjecture  what  they  might  have  been,  it  is  certain 
that  no  one  would  have  been  answerable  for  them, 
except  the  authors  of  them.  That  evils  have  arisen 
from  the  "  alliance^'  (independent  of  its  not  being 
in  itself  an  allowable  thing)  is,  I  think,  but  too 
evident ;  and  also  that  for  those,  and  likewise  for 
all  such  as  mai/  arise — for  possible  as  well  as  actual 
evils — those  are  responsible  who  further  or  consent 
to  such  an  alliance. 

Some  of  these  evils,  which  are  in  their  own 
nature  inevitable  consequences  of  the  system,  I 
have  already  hinted  at.  One  of  the  chief  I  hold 
to  be  the  impression  made  on  weak  minds  (such  as 
those  of  the  generality)  that  religion,  which  they 
see  to  be  made  a  state-engine,  is,  in  fact,  a  state  con- 
trivance ;  an  improvement  on  the  Mumbo-jumbo 
of  the  negroes  ;  a  thing  devised,  or  kept  up,  merely 
for  the  sake  of  keeping  the  refractory  in  order ; 
and  which  is  not  believed  even  by  those  who  pro- 
fess for  it  the  most  profound  veneration.  The 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  wise  and  well-informed 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  103 

men  who  hold  certain  opinions  is  an  evidence  which 
could  not  surely  have  been  intended  to  be  excluded 
in  the  case  of  the  Christian  religion.  In  astronomy 
there  are  very  few  capable  of  demonstrating  the 
motion  of  the  earth  ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  believed, 
and  not  absurdly,  by  the  mass  of  the  people,  on  the 
ground  that  they  know  it  has  been  proved  by  evi- 
dence satisfactory  to  the  greatest  astronomers. 
Nor  are  the  multitude  at  all  more  capable  of  study- 
ing the  Scriptures  in  their  original  tongues,  and 
sifting  the  whole  of  the  evidence  relating  to  their 
authenticity  and  right  interpretation :  but  if  they 
know  that  these  things  have  been  examined  by 
learned  men,  who  ho.ve  been  convinced  by  satisfac- 
tory arguments  that  those  books  were  written  by 
such  and  such  persons,  and  that  the  sense  of  the 
Greek  and  Hebrew  words  is  so  and  so,  this  is 
surely  no  absurd  ground  of  conviction  to  the  un- 
learned. Now  the  force  of  this  appeal  to  authority 
is  impaired  exactly  in  proportion  as  a  suspicion  of 
hypocrisy  arises  ;  and  it  will  arise  in  proportion 
as  freedom  of  discussion  is  prevented  or  discoun- 
tenanced, and  religious  profession  made  a  point  of 
secular  obligation.  A  man's  conformity  to  a  reli- 
gion which  is  *'  part  of  the  law  of  the  land*'  gives 
no  assurance  whatever  that  he  is  convinced  of  its 
Divine  origin ;  nay,  he  can  hardly  even  be  called 
hypocritical,  even  though  he  disbelieve  it.  The 
law  requires  him  to  say  nothing  against  Christi- 
anity ;  and  he  obeys  the  law.  A  man  whom  you 
charged  with  hypocrisy  for  complying,  in  a  Ro- 


104  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

man  Catholic  country,  with  all  the  forms  of  that 
church,  though  he  did  not  believe  in  what  she 
teaches,  would  answer,  that  a  profession  compul- 
sory upon  all  alike  implies  nothing;  and  that  he 
might  as  well  call  you  hypocritical  for  complying 
with  the  established  rule  of  courtesy  which  requires 
you  to  sign  yourself  his  obedient  humble  servant. 
Do  but  observe,  therefore,  how  constantly  the  "  arm 
of  flesh"  weakens  the  spiritual  cause  it  is  called  in 
to  aid.  It  is  like  a  "  wall  daubed  with  untempered 
mortar,"  built  as  a  support  to  an  edifice  of  better 
materials,  and  which,  when  beaten  down  by  the 
"winds  and  floods,"  drags  with  it  the  rest  of  the 
structure.  By-lhe-way,  I  never  clearly  understood 
the  right  meaning  of  the  maxim  so  often  repeated 
from  high  authority,  that  "  Christianity  is  part  of 
the  law  of  the  land."  What  form  of  Christianity 
is  meant  ?  Some  will  say,  none  in  particular,  but 
Christianity  in  general.  This  is  a  most  undefined 
law;  for  who  can  explain  (I  am  sure  I  cannot) 
what  is  that  general  Christianity  which  contains 
nothing  peculiar  to  any  sect  or  church?  This  I 
know  ;  that  1  might  blaspheme  almost  any  doctrine 
I  pleased,  slill  keeping  on  my  side,  in  each  case, 
some  who  call  themselves  Christians.  I  think  you 
have  a  sect  called  Free-thinking  Christians,  who 
leave  the  Divine  mission  of  Jesus  among  their 
doubtful  points.  The  Christian  religion,  as  estab- 
lishedby  law,  is  that  of  the  Church  of  England.  Is, 
then,  a  man  legally  punishable  who  impugns  any  of 
her  doctrines  ? 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHUROH   AND   STATE.  105 

You  will  observe,  however,  that  in  disallowing 
the  interference  of  the  civil  power  in  religious  con- 
cerns, I  do  not  mean  (as  has  been  before  observed) 
that  the  same  person  may  not,  if  it  so  happens,  hold 
office  both  in  the  church  and  in  the  state;  just  as 
a  professor  at  the  university  may  be  a  member  of 
parliament;  though  not,  as  such.  Nor  do  I  at  all 
object  to  the  appointment  of  lay  elders  to  take  a 
share  in  the  government  of  the  church :  for  that 
society  does  not  consist  of  ministers  alone ;  nor 
need  all  its  officers  necessarily  have  the  same  of- 
fices. But  let  not  the  secular  magistrate  have  hy^ 
virtue  of  that  his  office  any  control  over  the  spiritual 
society  ;  nor  the  ecclesiastical  ruler,  lay  or  clerical, 
have,  as  such,  any  secular  power.  For  then  Christ's 
kingdom  becomes  one  that  is  of  this  world. 

Thus  much  concerning  the  character  of  an  alli- 
ance between  church  and  state  generally.  Yoa 
ask  me  in  what  respects,  and  to  what  degree, 
this  alliance  can  be  said  to  exist  in  England.  It 
is  a  question  which  I  cannot  take  upon  me  conn- 
pletely  to  decide ;  and  if  you  will  consult  on  the 
subject  several  different  well-informed  members  of 
your  church,  I  believe  they  will  give  you  several 
different  accounts  of  it. 

Every  one  knows  that  the  King  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, as  such,  is  head  of  the  English  church  ;  and 
that  he  has  the  title  of  "  Defender  of  the  Faith :" 
whether  this  last  be  anything  more  than  an  empty 
title,  and  what  extent  of  jurisdiction  is  implied 
by  the  former,  all  are  not  agreed.     In  the  Thirty- 


106  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

nine  Articles,  the  expression  *'head  of  the  church" 
does  not  appear;  but  he  is  said  to  have  the 
right  of  governing  all  "estates  of  nnen"  within 
his  dominions.  Now  if  by  his  suprennacy  over 
ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  persons  and  causes 
be  meant  merely  that  he  is  king  of  all  in  their 
capacity  of  citizens,  whether  ministers,  lay-elders, 
or  persons  unconnected  with  the  government  of 
the  church  ;  that  he  is  impowered  and  bound  to 
govern  and  protect  their  persons  and  property, 
"whether  that  be  church  property,  or  oihcr  indiffer- 
ently;  if  this,  I  say,  be  the  whole  meaning  of  the 
article,  then  his  majesty  might  be  as  well  entitled 
head  of  the  Jewish  church  within  the  limits  of 
these  realms,  and  defender  of  their  faith ;  since,  as 
chief  magistrate,  he  is  authorized  and  bound,  in 
conjunction  with  the  rest  of  the  legislature,  to  de- 
fend from  violence  and  insult  the  persons  and  the 
properly  of  Jews. 

It  must  be  owned  that  the  reference  which 
the  article  makes  to  the  example  of  the  "  godly 
princes  recorded  in  Scripture"  does  seem  to  im- 
ply a  spiritual  government,  such  as  that  of  the 
kings  of  Israel,  who,  though  they  could  not  offici- 
ate as  priests,  were  endued  with  coercive  power 
in  matters  pertaining  to  religion;  which,  indeed,  is 
implied  by  the  nature  of  a  theocracy,  and  which 
must  be  an  usurpation  except  under  a  theocracy. 
But  some  may  understand  by  these  "  godly  prin- 
ces" such  heathen  kings  as  Cyrus  and  Darius, 
under  whose  auspices  the  temple  was  rebuilt  and 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  107 

the  sacred  vessels  restored.  This  is  certainly  not 
the  nnost  obvious  interpretation  ;  but  may,  never- 
theless, be  the  true  one.  In  a  case  of  such  nnani- 
fest  ambiguity  I  cannot  pretend  to  decide. 

But  it  may  be  more  to  the  purpose  to  inquire 
what  spiritual  authority  the  King  of  Great  Britain 
actually  exercises.  Does  he  not  virtually  ordain 
bishops  ?  And  is  not  ordination  a  spiritual  func- 
tion ?  I  am  not  speaking  of  the  appointment  to  a 
particular  see  of  one  who  is  already  a  bishop,  that 
is  no  exercise  of  spiritual  authority,  any  more 
than  the  institution  to  a  particular  benefice  of  one 
already  a  minister ;  but  of  the  determination  who 
shall  he  a  bishop.  If  the  patron  of  a  benefice  had 
power  to  present  a  layman,  and  to  compel  the 
bishop  to  ordain  him  priest,  this  would  surely  be  a 
virtual  ordination  by  the  patron  ;  and  the  case  I 
am  considering  is  parallel  to  that ;  unless  it  be 
said  that  whoever  is  fit  to  be  a  priest  is  neces- 
sarily fit  to  be  a  bishop:  in  which  case  the  very 
notion  of  ordination  would  be  nugatory  ;  since 
you  might  as  well  talk  o{  ordaining  a  man  lecturer 
or  prebendary.  It  may  be  said,  that  the  chapter, 
a  clerical  body,  are  the  electors  of  a  bishop,  and 
the  bishops  his  ordainers  ;  and  I  grant  that  this 
makes  his  ordination  real  and  valid :  but  does  not 
the  compulsion  under  which  this  is  done  imply  an 
interference  of  the  civil  magistrate  in  spirituals? 
And  is  not  this  an  encroachment  on  the  kingdom 
which  is  not  of  this  world  ?  Jf  the  pope  had 
power  to  determine  who  should  and  who  should 


108  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

not  be  admitted  to  holy  orders  within  these 
realms,  would  not  the  pope  be  the  spiritual  gov- 
ernor of  the  churches  there  existing?  There  is 
something,  I  think,  strained  and  fanciful  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  term  simony  to  the  sale  of  bene- 
fices, since  it  is  not  a  spiritual  o^ce,  but  a  temporal 
endowment  that  is  sold.  But  there  is  something 
that  does  remind  one  of  Simon  Magus,  in  saying, 
"  I  will  give  the  church  secular  power  and  wealth, 
on  condition  that  you  will  let  me,  indirectly,  if  you 
will,  but  in  effect,  ordain  bishops  ;  if  you  will  let 
me  say  to  whomsoever  I  will,  not  immediately 
indeed,  but  by  compelling  another  to  say  it,  'Re- 
ceive the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  of  a  bishop/  " 
"  He  offered  them  money,  saying.  Give  me  also 
this  power,  that  on  whomsoever  1  lay  my  hands 
he  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost."  "  Thy  money 
perish  with  thee  !  Thou  hast  no  part  nor  lot  in 
this  matter." 

But  it  may  be  said,  the  chapter  or  the  bishops 
may  refuse  to  listen  to  the  royal  recommendation. 
True,  and  I  hope  they  will,  if  ever  the  king  should 
recommend  an  improper  person  :  but  they  are 
punishable  for  it  hij  law.  They  have  no  legal 
power  to  refuse.  A  Protestant  in  Spain  may  defy 
the  pope,  if  he  is  willing  to  be  burnt  for  it.  Nero 
allowed  the  Christians  the  option  of  obeying  him 
in  religious  matters,  or  of  suffering  punishment; 
because  this  is  an  option  which  no  one  can  take 
away.  And  it  is  to  be  remembered,  that  (as  has 
been  formerly  remarked)  the  threat  of  punishment 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.     109 

is  the  same  encroachment  as  its  infliction,  if  its 
not  being  inflicted  is  merely  because  the  threat 
has  prevented  its  being  incurred. 

But,  then,  these  bishops  having  a  seat  in  the 
house  of  peers,  the  church  by  this  means  acquires 
a  share  in  the  civil  government ;  that  is,  one  usur- 
pation is  compensated  by  another :  the  control  of 
the  civil  magistrate  in  spiritual  aflTairs  is  balanced 
by  a  control  of  the  spiritual  society  in  temporal ; 
and  the  character  of  Christ's  kingdom  is  thus 
doubly  violated  by  this  additional  step  towards 
making  it  a  kingdom  of  this  world.  "  Give  thy 
child  that  we  may  eat  him  to-day,  and  we  will 
eat  my  child  to-morrow,"  2  Kings,  vi.  And  the 
complaint  also  of  the  woman  who  had  consented 
to  this  nefarious  proposal  is  not  foreign  to  the 
present  case ;  "  She  hath  hid  her  child ;"  for  after 
all,  to  what  does  this  boasted  guardianship  of  the 
church  amount,  which  is  to  be  the  salve  for  every 
hurt  ?  When  you  meet  with  any  friend  to  the 
church  who  is  satisfied  with  it,  do  you  make  a 
corresponding  proposal  for  securing  the  civil  lib- 
erties of  the  people  :  "  let  us,  to  avoid  the  trouble 
and  expense  of  elections,  abolish  the  House  of 
Commons  altogether  ;  and,  by  way  of  having  the 
people  duly  represented  and  their  rights  secured, 
let  the  government,  i.  e.,  the  king  and  House  of 
Lords,  nominate  twenty  commoners,  to  sit  for  life  in 
that  house,  with  unequal  salaries  annexed  to  their 
seats ;  the  government  filling  up  the  vacancies 
occasioned  by  deaths,  and  having  power  to  ad- 

K 


110  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

vance  each  of  these  representatives  from  a  lower 
to  a  higher  salary."  If  any  one  raised  an  outcry 
against  such  an  inadequate  protection  of  the  inter- 
ests of  the  people,  remind  him  that  such,  precisely, 
is  the  protection  afforded  to  the  church  by  the 
seats  held  by  bishops  in  the  upper  house.  They 
are  insignificant  in  number  ;  they  have  no  veto  in 
ecclesiastical  questions  \  they  are  appointed  by  the 
civil  magistrate ;  and  though  not  removable  at 
pleasure,  are  translatable  from  an  inferior  see  to 
a  better.  But  what  I  most  except  against  is — the 
very  circumstance  dwelt  on  as  an  advantage — 
that  they  have  a  vote  in  all  secular  matters  also, 
in  common  with  the  rest  of  the  peers.  I  scarcely 
need  notice  the  petty  quibble,  that  they  sit  in  the 
house,  not  as  bishops,  but  as  barons  ;  since  their 
being  bishops  makes  them  barons,  it  comes  to  the 
same  thing.  Only  observe,  that  my  objection  is, 
not  to  any  one's  admission  to  holy  orders,  or  to 
any  ecclesiastical  office,  who  may  chance  to  have 
a  seat  in  either  house,  but  to  the  necessary  and 
constant  conjunction  of  the  two  ;  his  sitting  as  an 
ecclesiastical  officer ;  for  this  it  is  that  blends  and 
interlocks  the  two  societies  together  in  the  man- 
ner which  some  so  much  admire,  and  multiplies 
the  bands  of  that  alliance  which  is  as  unjustifiable 
in  its  principle  as  pernicious  in  its  eflfects. 

And  pray  observe  this  most  absurd  inconsist- 
ency :  a  clergyman  must  not  sit  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  even  though  selected  by  the  freemen  of 
any  place  as  a  fit  representative,  and  though  he 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.     Ill 

may  chance  to  have  no  spiritual  cure,  or  none 
which  occupies  much  of  his  time  (I  need  not  re- 
mind you  how  this  law  originated) :  on  the  other 
hand,  a  bishop  must  have  a  seat  in  the  upper  house, 
whether  well  or  ill  fitted  for  parliamentary  busi- 
ness ;  though  he  cannot  but  have  a  spiritual  cure, 
that  of  his  diocess,  which  cannot  but  be  enough  to 
occupy  fully  his  time  and  thoughts. 

One  of  the  effects  resulting  from  this  system  is 
the  imposition  of  articles  and  liturgy  by  secular  au- 
thority. I  am,  as  you  know,  a  warm  admirer,  gen- 
erally speaking,  of  both ;  but  it  degrades  their 
sacred  character  that  they  should  stand  upon  the 
foundation  of  acts  of  parliament ;  that  the  spiritual 
rulers  cannot  alter  them  when  they  may  need  it ; 
and  that  the  secular  power  can,  whether  they  need 
it  or  not.  And,  accordingly,  it  is  almost  a  prover- 
bial reproach,  that  yours  is  "  a  parliamentary  re- 
ligion ;"  that  you  worship  the  Almighty  as  the  act 
directs ;  and  that  yoij  are  bound  to  seek  for  salva- 
tion "  according  to  the  law  in  that  case  made  and 
provided"  by  king,  lords,  and  commons,  under 
the  directions  of  the  ministers  of  state ;  of  persons 
who  may  be  eminently  well  fitted  for  their  civil 
offices,  and  who  may,  indeed,  chance  to  be  not  only 
exemplary  Christians,  but  sound  divines,  but  who 
certainly  are  not  appointed  to  their  respective  oflH- 
ces  with  any  sort  of  view  to  their  spiritual  func- 
tions ;  who  cannot  even  pretend  that  any  sort  of 
qualification  for  the  good  regulation  of  the  church 
is  implied  by  their  holding  such  stations  as  they  do. 


112  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

Can  this  possibly  be  agreeable  to  the  designs  and 
institutions  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  ?  If  any  one 
will  seriously  answer  in  the  affirmative,  he  is  be- 
yond my  powers  of  argumentation. 

I  shall  not  be  suspected  by  you,  I  trust,  of  being 
one  of  those  shallow  reasoners  who  seem  to  think 
that  your  religion  is  made  false  from  having  been 
true  ;  your  liturgy  changed  from  good  to  bad  by 
the  mere  circumstance  of  having  secular  power  to 
enforce  them  :  but  should  any  one  urge  that  if  your 
religion  is  true  and  your  worship  pure,  they  are  so 
only  hy  accident ;  being  established  and  maintained 
by  those  in  power,  not  for  the  sake  of  truth  (even 
supposing  them  competent  judges),  but  of  utility, 
i.  e.,  as  a  convenient  tool  to  further  their  political 
objects  ;  and  should  it  be  added  that  the  ministers 
of  state,  and  the  others  who  have,  in  fact,  the  su- 
preme direction  of  these  matters,  may,  as  likely  as 
not,  be  persons  "  least  esteemed  in  the  church" — 
least  competent  (even  with  the  best  intentions)  to 
decide  questions  relating  to  religion,  of  ail  the 
members  of  the  Christian  community  ;  should  all 
this,  I  say,  be  alleged  against  you,  I  know  not  what 
you  could  reply. 

Even  the  truths  of  physical  science  may  be  re- 
ceived with  disgust  and  may  be  treated  with  scorn 
when  promulgated  by  authority.  When  Julius 
Caesar  had  reformed  the  Roman  calendar  (after  his 
usurpation),  Cicero,  we  are  told,  when,  at  a  party, 
some  one  remarked  that  the  constellation  Lyra 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.     113 

would  rise  next  day,  replied,  "  Nempe  ex  edicto  ;" 
as  we  should  say,  "  by  act  of  parliament." 

The  state- prayers  and  state-festivals,  in  particu- 
lar, which  are  enjoined  by  civil  authority,  besides 
that  they  lie  open  to  the  same  general  objection 
which  applies  to  every  case  of  secular  compulsion 
in  religious  matters,  may  also  be  especially  ob- 
jected to  on  the  score  of  bad  policy  and  also  of  bad 
taste.  Good  Christians  are  loyal  persons  (I  mean, 
conscientious  supporters  of  regular  government, 
whether  under  a  king  or  president,  according  to 
the  constitution  of  their  country),  but  compulsion 
precludes  them  from  showing  their  loyalty  in  that 
natural  way  which  would  be  the  most  impressive 
to  the  people.  It  may  be  said  of  piety  and  loyalty, 
as  of  mercy,  that  "  its  quality  is  not  strained." 
Prayers  which  must  be  repeated  under  a  temporal 
penalty  give  no  proof  of  either,  and  are  degrading 
at  once  to  those  who  utter  and  to  those  who  en- 
force them  ;  since  it  is  plain  that  whatever  these 
persons  may  in  fact  be,  a  tyrant  might  compel  to 
the  observance  of  such  forms,  and  a  slave  would 
be  obliged  to  comply.  Whatever  festival  is  ob- 
served or  form  of  prayer  used  in  compliance  with 
the  commands  of  the  civil  magistrate,  it  is  plain 
that  the  same  thing  either  would  be  done  by  an  in- 
dependent church,  or  would  not :  if  it  is  what  the 
church  would  do  of  her  own  accord,  under  the  di- 
rection of  her  own  spiritual  governors,  would  not 
this  have  a  much  better  effect  ?  And  if  it  be  what 
the  church  would  in  that  case  not  do,  can  there  be 
k2 


114  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

any  good  gained  by  obtaining  di  forced  compliance  ? 
Is  it  not  also  bad  taste,  as  well  as  bad  policy,  in  a 
king,  to  compel  men  under  a  penalty  to  pray,  or  at 
least  repeat  prayers,  in  his  behalf?  Surely  it 
places  both  parties  in  an  unfavourable  point  of  view, 
to  exact  that  as  matter  of  necessity  which  would 
be  so  gladly  and  so  heartily  done  without.  Surely 
you  have  not  such  a  king  or  such  clergy  that  they 
would  not  pray  for  him  without  constraint. 

Add,  too,  that  many  things  are  likely  to  strike 
one  as  absurd,  from  the  mere  circumstance  of  their 
being  not  left  to  the  regulation  of  the  church /rom 
time  to  time,  but  ''  established  by  an  ordinance  for 
ever  :"  the  regular  appointed  prayers,  for  instance, 
for  the  long  life  of  the  king,  stand  in  strange  con- 
trast, methinks,  with  the  setting  aside  for  a  solemn 
thanksgiving  (as  you  are  sure,  in  the  regular  course 
of  things,  must  be  done)  the  day  of  his  death,  i.  e,, 
the  day  on  which  his  successor  will  begin  to  reign. 

It  might  be  suspected,  not  without  a  show  of 
reason,  that  if  King  William,  instead  of  safely  land- 
ing his  forces  on  the  5th  of  November,  had  been 
on  that  day  drowned  in  a  storm,  you  would  have 
been  at  this  time  solemnly  celebrating  that  event, 
and  repeating  a  form  of  thanksgiving  to  Almighty 
God  for  having  a  second  time,  as  on  that  day,  over- 
thrown, in  a  miraculous  manner,  a  wicked  and 
treasonable  attempt  on  the  royal  house  of  Stuart. 
This,  I  say,  might  have  been  suspected,  even  had 
the  church  been  in  all  such  cases  left  to  her  own 
discretion  ;  but  the  suspicion  amounts  almost  to  a 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  115 

certainty,  when  it  is  considered  that  all  these  things 
are  dictated  by  those  in  power  for  the  time  being. 
You  will  readily  comprehend,  without  a  detailed 
discussion,  how  strongly  I  disapprove  of  many  of 
those  other  parts  of  the  system  which  tend  not 
only  to  make  the  clergy  the  mere  tools  of  the  civil 
governor,  but  to  degrade  them  even  beyond  what 
is  needed  with  a  view  to  the  ends  proposed.  I  al- 
lude, among  others,  to  the  regulations  respecting 
registers  of  baptisms,  marriages,  and  burials,  and 
all  the  petty  vexations  of  reading  briefs,  proclama- 
tions against  swearing,  and  other  things  of  that 
kind.  Everything  is  enforced  by  penalties,  and 
many  obsolete  acts  are  still  in  force,  which  never 
produce  any  other  effect  than  the  occasional  benefit 
of  an  informer,  by  the  levying  of  the  penalty. 
These  last  have  been  compared,  I  think,  by  one  of 
your  prelates,  to  those  insects  which,  when  in  all 
other  respects  lifeless,  still  retain  the  power  oi sting- 
ing. If  briefs  and  proclamations  are  better  than 
sermons,  or  needful  to  be  superadded,  let  them  be 
read  in  the  market-place  by  the  town-crier,  whose 
mode  of  elocution  would  be  best  suited  to  the  elo- 
quence of  their  style.  I  never  heard  one  of  your 
clergy  read  a  brief  (which  I  believe  no  one  of  them 
ever  would  read  but  to  escape  a  fine)  without 
pitying  him  for  the  degradation  of  being  forced  to 
recite  such  trash  in  the  house  of  God,  and  at  the 
same  time  made  the  organ  of  a  sort  of  job,  which 
goes  to  enrich,  with  a  large  proportion  of  what  is 
professedly  collected  for  the  indigent  Lazarus,  some 


116  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

Dives  who  fares  sumptuously  every  day,  and  whom 
the  hope  of  fees  causes  to  be  a  zealous  promoter  of 
this  kind  of  charity,  "  This  he  said,  not  that  he 
cared  for  the  poor,  but  because  he  was  a  thief,  and 
hare  the  hag,  and  kept  what  was  put  therein." 

Why,  again,  should  the  laws  compel  your  clergy 
to  keep,  in  a  certain  manner,  those  registers  which 
were  designed  for  secular  purposes  ?  Why  should 
the  administration  of  a  Christian  sacrament  be  con- 
nected with  the  ascertainment  of  a  man's  age  and 
parentage  ?  unless  it  be  purposely  to  secularize  the 
clergy  and  the  church  as  far  as  possible.  The 
clerk  of  the  nearest  magistrate,  or  the  church- 
wardens, or  any  one  appointed  for  that  purpose, 
would  be  competent  to  do  all  those  things,  and 
would  be  more  fittingly  so  employed.  But  the 
English  government  seems  to  have  a  delight  and  a 
pride  in  not  only  making  the  clergy  do  as  much  as 
possible  in  return  for  the  protection  they  enjoy,  but 
in  enforcing  their  services  in  the  most  harsh  and 
mortifying  way.  Like  the  ancient  Persian  soldiers, 
they  are  brought  into  the  field,  hvo  i^tTriyoi,  under 
the  lash  of  perpetual  penalties,  which  serve  to  keep 
your  ministers  in  a  state  of  degradation,  as  well  as 
of  dependance  on  the  state,  which  I  defy  you  to 
parallel  in  any  other  Christian  church  that  ever  ex- 
isted. They  are  exposed  to  insult  and  oppression 
from  the  subject  as  well  as  the  secular  ruler  ;  for 
if  any  farmer  have  a  mind  to  "  spite  the  parson" 
for  not  suffering  himself  to  be  cheated,  is  it  not  no- 
torious that  he  immediately  looks  out  for,  and  finds, 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  117 

some  penalty  that  he  may  levy  ?  And  all  this  is 
owing  to  your  boasted  alliance  with  the  state,  which 
gives  you  a  share,  forsooth,  in  the  civil  govern- 
ment, about  as  real  as  the  arch  of  the  rainbov/  has 
in  supporting  the  skies  1  They  will  not  give  the 
church  any  such  power  as  to  make  her  a  formidable 
rival ;  only  enough  semblance  of  it  to  make  her  a 
party  concerned  in  the  contract ;  enough  to  pro- 
fane and  desecrate  Christ's  spiritual  kingdom,  that 
they  may  have  the  better  plea  for  at  once  govern- 
ing in  her  name,  and  injuring  and  affronting  her. 
She  is  clad,  as  in  mockery,  in  the  scarlet  robe,  with 
a  reed  for  a  sceptre;  and  is  saluted  with  mock 
veneration,  and  treated  with  indignity,  as  well  as 
sentenced  to  the  lash. 

I  well  know,  indeed,  that  there  is  no  promise  to 
Christians  of  exemption  from  temporal  sufferings 
and  indignities,  and  that  it  is  their  glory  to  bear 
them  patiently  ;  but  this  is  only  when  they  have 
not  brought  these  things  on  themselves,  by  making 
over  to  a  secular  governor  the  guidance  of  the 
church  ;  by  "  rendering  unto  Cassar  the  things  that 
be  God's ;"  otherwise,  they  not  only  deserve  neither 
praise  nor  pity,  but  even  incur  just  censure,  on  ac- 
count of  the  evils  they  have  helped  to  introduce. 
*'  If,  when  ye  be  buffeted  for  your  faults,  ye  take  it 
patiently,  what  thank  have  ye  V* 

But,  with  respect  to  the  laws  relating  to  mar- 
riages, another  important  consideration  presents 
itself.  Marriage  consists  (in  our  view)  of  two 
things ;  a  civil  contract,  which  makes  the  offspring 


118  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

legitimate  in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  involves  tem- 
poral obligations  ;  and  a  vow  before  God.  With 
respect  to  the  first,  it  ought  to  be  competent  to  per- 
sons of  all  persuasions  to  form  the  civil  contract 
without  any  violence  to  their  religious  principles, 
however  erroneous,  and  without  any  interference 
with  religious  rites  whatever.  Oliver  Cromwell 
was  right  for  once  in  causing  this  civil  contract  to 
be  made  before  the  civil  magistrate.  Neither 
Jews,  nor  Turks,  nor  Christians  can  object  to  this, 
if  they  choose  to  live  under  the  laws  of  this  land ; 
the  magistrate,  therefore,  ought  to  certify  and  re- 
gister the  due  contraction  of  this  engagement.  But 
as  for  the  religious  rite,  that  should  be  left  to  the 
religious  community  to  which  each  person  belongs. 
I  cannot  but  think,  that  in  the  case,  for  instance,  of 
the  Unitarians,  there  is  both  a  species  of  persecu- 
tion and  profanation  committed.  I  need  not  tell 
you  that  I  abhor  the  faith  of  the  Unitarians  ;  so  I 
do  that  of  the  infidel  Jews  and  Mohammedans ; 
but  I  think  that  none  of  these  should  be  compelled, 
in  order  to  contract  a  marriage,  to  be  witnesses 
and  partakers  of  a  ceremony  which  their  conscience 
condemns  ;  and  it  is,  under  these  circumstances,  a 
degradation  of  the  minister,  and  a  profanation  of 
the  ceremony,  that  it  should  take  place.  But  I 
would  not  have  the  priests,  or  whatever  they  may 
be  called,  of  these  religionists,  intrusted  with  the 
solemnization  of  a  legal  contract :  let  that  be  done, 
171  all  cases^  by  the  civil  magistrate ;  and  whatever 
religious  rites  each  religious  community  thought  fit 


ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE.  119 

to  superadd,  let  them  be  the  concern  of  that  com- 
munity. Whether  the  Scotch  law  is  in  this  respect 
perfect,  which  does  not  require  the  intervention  of 
a  magistrate  for  the  civil  contract,  I  need  not  now 
inquire ;  it  is  manifestly  much  preferable  to  the 
English  in  not  blending  together  the  civil  contract 
with  the  religious.  And  the  Scotch  law,  you  will 
observe,  does  not  at  all  preclude  any  religious  com- 
munity from  passing  its  spiritual  censure  on  such 
as  do  not  comply  with  the  solemn  forms  enjoined 
by  that  community.  But  many  of  the  English 
clergy  seem  to  think,  with  Paley,  that  the  solemni- 
zation of  a  marriage  by  a  justice  of  peace  (though 
vi'iihoui  forbidding  any  previous  or  subsequent  re- 
ligious ceremony,  which  the  conscience  of  the  par- 
ties might  dictate)  was  calculated  to  degrade  the 
clergy.  They  stickle  for  their  exclusive  right  of 
solemnizing  marriage  between  those  who  think  the 
ceremony  blasphemous,  and  who  blaspheme  the 
doctrines  implied  in  it !  One  has  scarcely  patience 
with  men  who  thus  perversely  glory  in  degradation. 
They  remind  me,  in  many  points,  of  the  dog  in  the 
fable,  who  mistook  the  clog  round  his  neck  for  a 
badge  of  honourable  distinction. 

Altogether,  indeed,  I  cannot  but  say,  if  I  must 
speak  out,  that  there  is  another  fable  respecting  a 
dog,  of  which  the  conditionof  your  church  strongly 
reminds  me.  Your  American  brethren,  for  in- 
stance, and  some  others,  might  say  to  you,  as  the 
lean  and  hungry  wolf  did  to  the  well-fed  mastiff— 
**  You  are  fat  and  sleek,  indeed,  while  I  am  gaunt 


120  ALLIANCE    OF    CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

and  half  famished ;  but  what  means  that  mark  round 
your  neck?"  You  must  do  this,  under  a  penalty  ; 
and  you  must  not  do  that,  under  a  penalty  ;  you 
must  comply  with  the  rubric  ;  and  yet,  at  the  same 
time,  you  must  not  comply  with  the  rubric.  You 
are  bound  by  the  regulations  of  the  church,  all  of 
which  are  sanctioned  by  law,  to  exclude  certain 
descriptions  of  persons  from  the  communion  ;  yet, 
again,  you  may  be  prosecuted  by  them  if  you  dare  to 
do  so :  you  are  bound  to  excommunicate  all  obsti- 
nate noncommunicants,  as,  in  fact,  every  society  is 
to  exclude  those  who  will  not  comply  with  its  reg- 
ulations ;  yet  you  dare  not  to  do  this,  and,  indeed, 
ought  not ;  since  the  civil  penalties  annexed  would 
make  this  a  species  of  religious  persecution.  Any 
chapel  for  religious  worship  may  be  built  and  li- 
censed, unless  it  be  for  the  Church  of  England;  this 
is  because  you  are  under  government  protection  ;  is 
not,  then,  the  government  bound  (not  merely  to  do 
that  something  which  is  so  much  boasted  of  in  the 
way  of  building  churches,  but)  to  do  everj/thing 
that  is  needed,  to  supply  the  want  which  it  forbids 
any  one  else  to  supply  ? 

In  short,  you  are  fettered,  and  crippled,  and  dis- 
abled in  every  joint  by  your  alliance  with  a  body 
of  a  different  character,  which  could  not,  even  with 
the  best  intentions,  fail  to  weaken  instead  of  aiding 
you ;  but  which,  in  fact,  aims  chiefly  at  making  a 
tool  of  you.  But  some  of  you  seem  so  habituated 
to  this  dependance  of  the  church  on  the  state,  and 
so  fond  of  it,  as  to  have  even  solicited  interference 


ALLIANCE  OF  CHURCH  AND  STATE.     121 

in  a  case  which  could  not  concern  the  civil  com- 
munity, and  which  the  secular  magistrate  was  like- 
ly to  care  about  as  little  as  Gallio.  An  English 
bishop  did  not  dare  to  ordain  an  American  to 
officiate  in  a  country  not  under  British  dominion 
without  asking  and  obtaining  permission  of  his 
government ;  which  had  just  as  much  to  do  with 
the  business  as  the  government  of  Abyssinia  ! 

Think  not  that  I  mean  to  hold  up  your  church 
to  the  exulting  scorn  and  censure  of  sectaries,  as  if 
it  must  necessarily  cease  to  be  a  church  because 
these  abuses  exist ;  I  think  your  church  ought  not 
to  be  under  secular  control,  and  that  its  spiritual 
rulers  are  to  blame  for  submitting  without  remon- 
strance to  such  control ;  but  since  they  choose  thus 
voluntarily  to  submit,  all  that  they  do  is  their  own 
act  and  deed  :  the  spiritual  power  that  they  have 
and  exercise  is  derived  from  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles; and,  therefore,  wherever  there  is  no  direct 
contravention  of  the  Divine  commands,  their  acts 
are  valid,  even  where  their  motives  are  censura- 
ble ;  fieri  non  dehuit ;  factum  valet  If  a  king  of 
Great  Britain,  for  instance,  should  be  induced,  by 
improper  motives,  to  appoint  some  particular  per- 
son a  lord  lieutenant  or  justice  of  the  peace,  he 
would  himself,  indeed,  be  blameable  for  so  doing  ; 
but  the  appointment  would,  nevertheless,  be  legal 
and  valid. 

And,  as  for  any  ordinance  or  practice  of  your 
church  which  may  be  itself  tinged  with  error,  if 
such  error  should  be  accounted  necessarily  suffi- 

L 


122  ALLIANCE    OF   CHURCH    AND    STATE. 

cient  to  unchurch  you,  it  is  plain  that  none  but  a 
church  which  assumed  to  be  infallible  could  pre- 
tend to  call  itself  a  Christian  church  at  all. 

But  for  all  the  abuses  which  may  exist  in  your 
church,  the  dissenters  (besides  their  own  peculiar 
faults)  are  at  least  as  responsible  as  any  of  your- 
selves ;  since,  as  soon  as  they  perceived  anything 
to  object  to,  instead  of  remonstrating  and  trying  to 
effect  a  reform,  they  at  once  withdrew,  as  if  glad 
of  any  pretence  to  effect  a  schism.     They,  in  fact, 
proceeded  at  once  to  an  excommunication  of  you  ; 
and,  therefore,  even  supposing  that  they  could  have 
justly  charged  you  with  heresy,  they  would  have 
acted  in  direct  contravention  of  St.  Paul's  direc- 
tions in  "  rejecting  you  without  a  first  and  second 
admonition.^''     If  I  perceived  that  the  government 
of  my  country  was  submitting  to  an  undue  control 
of  a  foreign  power,  I  would  at  least  endeavour, 
long  and  earnestly,  to  induce  the  members  of  the 
administration  to  assert  their  independence.    Small 
would  be  the  patriotism  of  that  man  who  should, 
in   such   a   case,  immediately  renounce   his   alle- 
giance, abjure  his  country,  and  raise  the  standard 
of  rebellion. 

Still  less  do  I  coincide  with  them  in  condemning 
a  religious  establishment  altogether,  or  in  charging 
your  clergy  (a  charge  which,  unfortunately,  is 
sanctioned  by  Warburton  and  others)  with  being 
the  hired  servants  of  the  state,  kept  in  pay  by  the 
government.  This  assertion,  though  maintained 
in  common  by  the  enemies  and  by  some  of  the 


ON  RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS,    ETC.         123 

friends  ofyour  church,  you  are  justified  in  distinctly 
denying,  and  may  satisfactorily  prove  to  be  totally 
unfounded. 

My  views  of  this  subject,  however,  I  will  lay  be- 
fore you  in  my  next  letter. 


LETTER  V. 


ON    RELIGIOUS     ESTABLISHMENTS    AND    TOLERATION, 


My  dear 


You  well  know  what  admiration  I  feel  for  the 
excellent  constitution  of  civil  government  under 
which  you  live.  I  do  not  think  it  faultless,  which 
no  human  institution  is,  nor  that  it  has  no  such 
faults  as  it  would  be  possible  to  mend ;  but,  even 
without  any  "  revision  and  correction"  in  succes- 
sive editions  of  it,  such  are  its  advantages,  as 
strongly  to  impress  the  mind  of  every  one  who  is 
well  acquainted  with  it,  except  some  of  those  who 
live  under  it,  and  in  whom  **  familiarity  has  bred 
contempt"  for  the  blessings  they  have  always  been 
accustomed  to  enjoy.  I  should  therefore,  of  course, 
be  backward  to  advise  the  removal  of  any  support 
that  really  tends  to  give  stability  to  so  excellent  a 
form  of  government ;  though  still  even  that  would 
be  an  imperious  duty  on  any  servant  of  Christ  who 
might  be  convinced  that  it  was  impossible  other- 


134  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

wise  to  comply  with  his  commands.  This,  how- 
ever, is  so  far  from  being  the  case,  that  the  kind  of 
alliance  which  I  so  much  deprecate,  I  can  distinctly 
prove  to  be  disadvantageous  to  the  state  as  well  as 
to  the  church ;  and,  consequently,  that  an  alter- 
ation of  the  system  would  be  beneficial  to  both 
parties. 

Again,  I  consider  it  as  so  important  a  thing 
that  the  clergy  should  not  be  dependant  on  the 
bounty  of  their  flocks,  which  could  not  but  give 
an  undue  advantage  to  such  preachers  as  would 
be  more  studious  to  conform  their  doctrines  to  the 
inclinations  of  their  hearers,  than  the  character 
of  their  hearers  to  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
that  I  would  not  wilhngly  suggest  the  adoption  of 
a  system  under  which,  as  Paley  rightly  observes, 
*'  preaching  would  become  a  kind  of  begging." 
And  yet,  if  it  were  impossible  otherwise  to  preserve 
inviolate  the  fundamental  principles  of  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom,  I  would  prefer  the  other  as  the 
less  evil  of  the  two.  I  would  hardly  hope,  indeed, 
that  the  state  would  be  persuaded  voluntarily  to 
relinquish  a  powerful  support ;  nor  that  the  clergy 
would  be  induced,  generally,  even  by  the  most 
decisive  arguments,  to  believe  that  they  were 
called  upon  to  resign  their  revenues ;  but  still  1 
would  consider  myself  bound  to  clear  my  own 
conscience  by  following  the  truth  wherever  it 
might  lead  me,  though  without  expectation  of  find- 
ing many  companions. 

But,  in  fact,  none  of  these  consequences  would 


AND    TOLERATION.  125 

follow  from  anything  I  would  propose.  The  cler- 
gy, though  they  ought  not  to  be  the  hired  ser- 
vants of  the  civil  magistrate,  may  justly  retain 
their  revenues ;  and  the  state,  though  it  has  no 
right  of  interference  in  spiritual  concerns,  not  only 
is  justly  entitled  to  support  from  the  ministers  of 
religion,  and  from  all  other  Christians,  but  would, 
under  the  system  1  am  recommending,  obtain  it 
much  more  efTectually. 

If,  indeed,  I  really  thought  the  spiritual  govern- 
ors of  the  church  in  yours,  or  in  any  other  coun- 
try, had  absolutely  betrayed,  for  a  pecuniary  con- 
sideration, the  trust  solemnly  committed  to  them, 
and  were  receiving  from  the  magistrate  a  com- 
pensation in  the  shape  of  wages  for  their  surren- 
der of  the  independence  and  purity  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  I  should  have  nothing  to  advise  them 
but  forthwith  to  "  cast  down  the  thirty  pieces  of 
silver,"  the  covenanted  price  of  their  treachery. 

But  the  fact,  in  the  case  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land at  least,  is  far  otherwise.  Both  Warburton, 
indeed,  and  Paley,  speak  of  the  maintenance  pro- 
vided for  the  clergy  by  the  state,  of  the  justness  of  a 
compulsory  payment  for  their  support,  of  a  tax 
levied  expressly  for  that  object,  and  of  the  best 
modes  of  raising  such  a  tax,  and  of  distributing  the 
produce  of  it,  &c.,  as  if  all  such  discussions  neces- 
sarily appertained  to  the  subject  now  before  us ; 
but,  in  truth,  they  are  irrelevant,  and  may  be 
waved  altogether.  It  is,  to  say  the  least,  a  gross 
misrepresentation  to  affirm  that  government  levies 
l2 


126  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

a  tax  in  the  shape  of  tithes,  and  pays  the  clergy 
with  the  proceeds.  It  is  a  mere  play  upon  words, 
to  call  tithes  and  other  church  revenues  a  tax,  or 
to  speak  of  any  one  paying  them.  They  are 
neither  a  tax  nor  a  payment,  in  the  sense  of  the 
words  which  these  writers  have  in  view.  A  man 
who  has  an  estate  left  to  him,  burdened  with  cer- 
tain legacies,  may  be  said,  in  one  sense,  to  pay 
them,  since  the  money  passes  through  his  hands, 
and  the  legatees  look  to  him  for  it ;  but  he  does 
not  pay  in  the  same  sense  in  which  he  pays  his 
labourers  their  wages,  because  the  legacy  money 
1*5  710^;  nor  ever  was,  his.  And  in  one  sense  you 
may,  if  you  will,  call  these  legacies  a  tax  levied 
by  the  government,  inasmuch  as  the  laws  of  the 
land  enforce  the  payment  of  it ;  but  in  a  very  dif- 
ferent sense  from  that  in  which  any  other  tax  is 
so  called,  viz.,  a  portion  withdrawn,  at  the  com- 
mand of  the  state,  for  the  public  exigences,  from 
that  which  was  before  the  private  property  of  the 
individual.  It  is  easy  to  see  to  which  description 
the  chief  part  of  the  church  revenues  belongs. 
Those  who  occupy  glebe-lands  pay  the  clergy 
exactly  in  the  same  sense  of  the  word,  and  in  the 
same  manner,  as  the  occupiers  of  any  other  land 
pay  their  landlords,  whether  bodies  corporate, 
such  as  hospitals  and  colleges,  or  individuals. 
Nor  is  the  case  of  tithes  anything  materially  dis- 
tinct from  that  of  other  property.  Some  are  held 
by  laymen,  some  by  incumbents  of  livings,  some 
by  bodies  corporate ;  but,  in  all  cases,  he  who  is 


AND    TOLERATION.  127 

called  the  owner  of  the  land  has  manifestly  no 
more  claim  to  the  nine  tenths  of  the  produce  than 
the  tithe-holder  has  to  his  one  tenth.  It  is  most 
unreasonable,  therefore,  that  the  tithe-payer  should 
complain  of  being  obliged  to  surrender  what  never 
belonged  to  him  ;  even  the  desire  to  retain  it  is  as 
manifest  a  breach  of  the  tenth  commandment  as 
to  covet  an  adjoining  farm. 

How  the  Church  of  England  came  into  pos- 
session of  that  property  which  her  officers  now 
hold  is  an  inquiry  which  may  serve  to  amuse  you 
and  others  who  delight  in  antiquarian  researches ; 
but  it  is  not  relevant  to  the  present  question.  The 
actual  right  of  the  church  to  her  property  is 
founded  (like  that  of  individuals  to  theirs)  in  pos- 
session. There  are  many  landholders  whose  titles 
would  not  bear  looking  into,  if  they  were  made 
to  rest  on  a  justification  of  every  step  by  which 
they  had  been  originally  acquired  and  subsequently 
transmitted.  The  right  of  the 'church  must  at 
least  be  allowed  to  stand  on  the  same  footing  with 
that  of  colleges,  hospitals,  town  corporations,  &c., 
to  their  respective  possessions.  Nay,  there  are 
several  other  religious  communities  which,  vir- 
tually, enjoy  similar  advantages,  though  their 
wealth  be  not  so  great.  There  have  been  persons 
of  various  religious  persuasions,  both  Christians 
and  Jews,  who  have  given  or  bequeathed  prop- 
erty, for  the  use,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  their 
respective  societies.  There  are  Methodist  chap- 
els, colleges  for  the  education  of  Independents, 


128  ON   RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

Anabaptists,  and  others,  and  several  like  endow- 
ments, which  enjoy,  in  common  with  every  other 
species  of  property,  the  protection  of  the  state. 
So  that,  if  this  is  to  be  held  to  constitute  an  estab- 
lished religion,  you  have  more  religions  established 
than  most  persons  are  aware  of.  What  I  mean  is, 
that,  let  the  revenues  of  hospitals,  schools,  (fee, 
and  of  the  Church  of  England,  have  originated 
how  they  may,  none  of  them  can  be  properly 
called  a  portion  of  the  revenues  of  the  state,  raised 
by  taxes  on  the  subject's  property,  and  appropri- 
ated by  the  existing  government  (as  in  the  case  of 
the  army  and  navy)  to  the  payment  of  certain 
persons  in  the  service  of  that  government. 

I  freely  acknowledge,  however,  that  the  state 
has  a  right  to  take  away  the  property  of  all,  or 
any,  of  these  corporations  (indemnifying,  of  course, 
the  individuals  actually  enjoying  the  revenues), 
whenever  the  manifest  inutility  or  hurtfulness  of 
the  institutions  riders  their  abolition  important  to 
the  public  welfare.  For  if  we  do  not  allow  this 
right;  if  we  consider  wills  so  sacred,  that  no  en- 
dowment is  to  be  on  any  account  transferred  from 
the  purpose  originally  designed  to  another,  we  are, 
in  fact,  making  the  earth  the  property,  not  of  the 
living,  but  of  the  dead  ;  we  authorize  one  genera- 
tion to  appropriate  for  ever,  to  purposes  which  may 
chance  to  be  insignificant  or  pernicious,  any  part, 
or  even  the  whole,  of  the  territory  of  the  country, 
to  the  entire  exclusion  of  their  successors.  It  is  a 
well-known  maxim,  accordingly,  of  English  juris- 


AND    TOLERATION.  129 

prudence,  and  one  founded  in  justice  (though,  un- 
fortunately, not  extended  to  Scotland),  that  "the 
law  abhors  perpetuities:"  such  appropriations  being 
in  certain  instances  tolerated,  with  an  understand- 
ing that  no  endowments  shall  claim  to  be  permitted 
to  continue,  which  is  either  a  manifest  waste  of 
money  on  an  object  entirely  useless,  or  which 
plainly  interferes  with  the  public  good.  At  the 
same  time  it  should  be  most  steadily  kept  in  mind 
that  the  right  to  disendow  is  one  which  should  not 
be  exercised  but  on  the  most  mature  deliberation, 
and  with  the  most  trembling  caution  ;  and  that  the 
burden  of  proof  should  always  be  cofisidered  as 
resting  on  those  who  propose  alienation  of  property. 
For  unless  such  proposals  be  looked  upon  with  a 
jealous  eye,  the  temptation  is  so  great,  that  the  most 
hasty  and  indiscriminate  spoliations  might  be  ex- 
pected to  ensue.  And  this,  not  only  when  some 
Henry  the  Eighth  arose,  who  shamelessly  pillaged 
for  his  own  immediate  profit,  whenever  he  could 
find  or  make  a  shadow  of  a  plea,  but  also  under 
the  government  of  men  much  more  scrupulous 
than  he  ;  but  who  might  yet  be  delighted  with  the 
thought  of  setting  up  new  institutions  of  their  own 
devising,  and  of  providing  ample  funds  by  the 
abolition  of  old  ones  ;  eager  to  rear  an  edifice  to 
their  own  fame,  and  ready  to  pull  down  any  other 
building  to  supply  materials.  Add  to  which,  that 
the  patronage  which  would  thus  be  thrown  into  the 
hands  of  those  in  power  for  the  time  being  would 


130  ON   RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

present,  to  many  minds,  a  temptation  even  more 
alluring  than  that  of  private  emolument. 

I  think,  therefore,  that  although  when  ^ny  fresh 
appropriation  of  part  of  the  national  wealth  is  pro- 
posed, proof  may  fairly  be  demanded  that  the  de- 
signed application  of  it  would  be  the  most  benefi- 
cial to  the  public  that  could  be  devised ;  in  the 
case  of  existing  institutions,  on  the  contrary,  this 
ought  not,  generally  at  least,  to  be  insisted  on  ;  but 
that,  if  the  funds  appear  to  be  neither  uselessly  nor 
hurtfully  employed,  this  should  be  (except  in  some 
very  extraordinary  cases)  held  a  sufficient  reason 
for  letting  things  remain  as  they  are,  without  rig- 
orously requiring  it  to  be  shown  that  the  funds 
could  not  possibly  be  tetter  bestowed.  For  to  re- 
quire thisj  though,  in  theory,  it  sounds  plausible, 
■would,  in  practice,  as  long  as  rulers  are  fallible  men, 
and  liable  to  passion  and  prejudice,  lead  speedily 
to  the  dissipation  of  all  endowments.  On  one  pre- 
tence or  another,  they  would  be  diverted  by  suc- 
cessive administrations  from  this  purpose  to  that, 
till  they  became  a  mere  perquisite  to  those  in 
power.  And  no  one  would  ever  give  or  bequeath 
any  property  to  any  such  institutions  as  I  am  speak- 
ing of,  when  he  knew  that  there  was  no  chance  of 
having  his  designs  fulfilled,  unless  they  should  seem 
not  only  beneficial,  but  the  most  beneficial,  not  to 
one  only,  but  to  every  successive  administration ; 
and,  what  is  more,  should  be  acknowledged  as  such 
by  those  whose  private  interest  or  ambition  would 
lead  them  to  advocate  some  scheme  of  their  own. 


AND    TOLERATION.  131 

The  principles,  accordingly,  which  have  been  laid 
down,  are  what  the  British  government  has,  in  its 
general  practice,  adhered  to.     It  has  preserved  in- 
violate the   property  of  hospitals,  colleges,  &c., 
whenever  the  institutions  appeared  to  be  not  detri- 
mental, and,  on  the  whole,  useful,  without  think- 
ing it  necessary  to  inquire,  in  each  case,  whether 
the  funds  could  possibly  have  been  mor&  usefully 
employed  ;  as  that  practice  must  ultimately  make 
an  opening  for  unlimited  spoliation.     The  univer- 
sities of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  for  instance ;  of 
Edinburgh  and  Aberdeen  ;  and  of  each  of  the  sev- 
eral colleges,  can  hardly  be,  every  one  of  them,  on 
the   best  conceivable   plan,   since   they  differ   so 
much  from  one  another :  the  Hulsean  lectureship 
and  the  Bampton  lectureship  cannot  be  each  of 
them  a  model  of  perfection  in  its  rules  ;  much  less 
can  Methodist  chapels  and  Baptist  chapels  ;  acade- 
mies for  the  education  of  men  in  the  principles  of 
various  descriptions  of  sectaries,  and   others  for 
the  inculcation  of  the  principles  of  the  Church  of 
England,  be,  all  and  each  of  them,  considered  as 
the  best  possible  appropriation  of  money  ;   but  it 
is  conceivable  that  each  may  be,  on  the  whole, 
rather  advantageous  than  hurtful  to  the  community; 
and  on  that  ground  I  presume  it  is  that  the  legisla-  •> 
ture,  very  wisely,  extends  its  protection  to  all,  and 
places  corporations,  in  such  cases,  on  the  same 
footing,  in  respect  of  their  property,  with  private 
individuals.     There   seems  no   reason,  therefore, 
why  the  property  of  the  Church  of  England,  which 


132  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

cannot  be  said  to  be  a  part  of  the  public  revenue 
of  the  state,  in  any  sense  except  that  in  which  the 
property  of  any  college  or  hospital  might  be  so  des- 
ignated, should  not  be  protected  in  the  same  man- 
ner, and  on  the  same  conditions,  as  the  property  of 
any  other  body  corporate  whatever. 

Now  though  the  civil  magistrate  is  the  supreme 
secular  governor  of  every  subject,  including,  for 
instance,  the  members  of  the  universities,  yet  he  is 
content  (as  he  ought  to  be)  with  the  civil  control 
of  them,  and  the  regulation  of  such  matters  as  im- 
mediately concern  the  state.  The  king  and  par- 
liament do  not  pretend  to  dictate  the  practice  and 
sanction  the  prescriptions  in  hospitals,  nor  to  make 
statutes  for  the  universities,  nor  to  prescribe  the 
course  of  lectures  to  be  delivered  by  professors  ; 
but  leave  medical  and  academical  men  to  settle 
matters  which  fall  within  their  own  respective 
provinces.  Would  it  not  be  preposterous  for  the 
state  to  claim  the  universities  as  allieSy  and  on  that 
ground  to  draw  up  and  impose,  by  its  own  author- 
ity, a  set  of  mathematical  or  anatomical  articles  ; 
or  to  interfere  with  the  course  of  lectures  delivered  ? 
And  is  there  anything  inconsistent  in  the  protec- 
tion afforded  to  the  property  of  such  bodies,  with- 
out the  exercise  of  any  such  interference  ? 

Warburton's  position,  therefore,  that  the  provi- 
sion of  a  legal  maintenance  for  the  clergy  is  ne- 
cessarily connected  with  such  an  alliance  of  church 
and  state  as  he  advocates,  and  "must  begin  and 
end  with  it,"  is  utterly  untenable,  as  being  either 


AND    TOLERATION.  133 

founded  on  a  manifestly  false  assumption,  if  you 
understand  him  in  one  sense,  or,  if  in  another 
sense,  irrelevant  and  foreign  from  the  question.  If 
he  means  by  the  *'  provision  of  a  legal  mainte- 
nance'* the  payment  of  the  clergy  out  of  the  taxes 
levied  by  the  state,  as  the  army  and  navy  are  paid, 
his  inference  may  be  true,  but  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose,  since  the  clergy  are  not  so  paid ;  if  he 
means  by  this  "  provision"  merely  the  legal  pro- 
tection of  church  property^  the  non-alienation  of 
those  revenues  of  which  she  is  in  actual  possession, 
then  it  is  utterly  false  that  this  requires,  or  implies, 
or  is  in  any  w^ay  necessarily  connected  with,  any 
interference  of  the  civil  magistrate  in  affairs  that 
are  not  of  a  secular  character — with  any  alliance 
between  the  two  communities  ;  as  is  evident  from 
the  case  of  those  other  institutions  above  alluded 
to,  with  which  no  such  interference  is  found  to  be 
necessary  or  judged  to  be  reasonable. 

And  as  such  a  possession  of  property  by  a 
church  does  not  necessarily  require,  and  conse- 
quently does  not  authorize,  any  spiritual  supremacy 
or  jurisdiction  in  the  civil  magistrate,  so  neither  is 
it  at  all  incompatible  with  the  character  of  Christ's 
kingdom.  A  religious  establishment,  in  this  sense, 
even  accompanied  by  lay-patronage,  is  by  no 
means  subversive  of  the  designs  of  our  Saviour 
and  his  apostles  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  highly  con- 
ducive to  them.  For  supposing  Christianity  first 
introduced  into  some  country  where  it  was  gladly 
received,  the  civil  governors  of  which  should  have 


134  ON    RELIGIOUS  ESTABLISHMENTS 

determined  to  stand  aloof,  in  their  public  capacity, 
and  to  leave  things  to  take  their  own  course  ;  in 
such  a  state  of  things,  laymen  might,  and  in  many 
instances  prabably  would,  provide  not  only  for  the 
present,  but  also  for  the  permanent  maintenance 
of  religious  ministers,  by  building  and  endowing 
places  of  worship,  and  houses  for  the  residence  of 
teachers,  each  man  in  his  own  neighbourhood ; 
leaving  the  church  whose  doctrines  he  embraced 
to  ordain  ministers,  and  reserving  to  himself  and 
his  heirs  merely  the  right  of  selecting  from  among 
these  any  minister  he  might  most  approve.  This 
patronage  would  be  no  more  an  encroachment  on 
the  spiritual  rights  of  the  church  of  Christ  than  the 
patronage  (for  virtually  it  is  such,  as  far  as  the 
preset. t  question  is  concerned)  which  any  one  ex- 
ercises who  contributes,  in  like  manner,  a  smaller 
sum  of  money  towards  the  maintenance  of  any  re- 
ligious teacher  whose  ministry  he  approves  ;  who 
relieves  the  wants,  for  instance,  as  the  Philippians 
and  others  did,  of  Paul,  or  Apollos,  or  Cephas. 
And  to  such  maintenance  St.  Paul  teaches  us  that 
Christian  ministers  are  fairly  entitled ;  but  he  no- 
where teaches  that  the  ministers  are  always  to  be 
maintained  solely  by  the  voluntary  contributions  of 
their  Jlocks  for  the  time  being.  If,  for  instance,  a 
sum  raised  for  the  relief  of  the  immediate  wants  of 
St.  Paul  had  proved  more  than  adequate  for  that 
purpose,  and  he  had  thought  it  advisable,  with  the 
consent,  or  at  the  desire  of  the  contributors,  to  pur- 
chase, with  the  overplus,  a  small  piece  of  ground 


AND    TOLERATION.  135 

(supposing  the  civil  government  had  been  willing 
to  extend  legal  protection  to  such  property),  on  the 
revenue  of  which  he  might  himself  subsist  during 
his  life,  and  which  afterward  might  be  appropri- 
ated to  the  support  of  any  regularly  ordained 
elder  whom  the  church  at  Philippi  might  prefer, 
this  could  have  been  no  more  an  infringement 
of  Christ's  kingdom  than  his  employment  of  the 
money  for  his  own  immediate  wants.  And  if  such 
a  piece  of  land  had  been  let  or  sold,  burdened  with 
a  rent-charge,  to  some  farmer,  who  was  required 
to  pay  over  a  certain  portion  of  the  produce  to 
such  elder,  it  would  have  been  most  unreasonable 
for  him  to  complain  that  he  was  contributing  by 
compulsion,  and  not  as  a  free  gift ;  since,  in  truth, 
he  would  not  have  been  paying  anything  that  ever 
was  his,  nor,  consequently,  anything  that  he  could 
have  a  right  to  bestow  as  a  gift. 

Now  nothing  more  than  this  is  necessarily  im- 
plied by  a  religious  establishment,  with  lay  patron- 
age. And  such  an  establishment  is  virtually  en- 
joyed in  Britain  by  many  sectaries,  who  hold  (in 
the  name  of  trustees)  academies,  meeting-houses, 
and  other  endowments,  bestowed  by  persons  of 
those  persuasions. 

It  may  be  objected,  however,  that  if  the  church 
asserts  her  independence,  denies  the  spiritual  su- 
premacy of  the  magistrate,  and  renounces  the  alli- 
ance now  subsisting  with  the  state,  she  cannot  claim 
to  retain  that  property,  the  possession  of  which 
was,  if  not  granted,  at  least  guaranteed  to  her,  at  a 


136  ON   RELIGIOrS   ESTABLISHMENTS 

time  when  that  alliance  existed,  and  that  supreme 
acy  was  admitted  ;  since  the  continuance  of  these, 
it  may  be  urged,  must  be  regarded  as  the  un- 
derstood conditions  of  the  contract  by  virtue  of 
which  she  holds  her  revenues.  In  short,  she  may 
be  represented  as  in  the  condition  of  the  mouse  in 
Horace's  fable,  which  was  obliged  to  submit  to 
starvation  in  order  to  creep  through  the  chink  by 
w^hich  alone  it  could  regain  liberty : 

"  Macra  cavum  repetes  arctum  quem  macra  subisti." 

And  I  trust  your  clergy  would  be  ready  to  ex- 
claim with  the  poet, 

"  Hac  ego  si  compellar  imagine,  cuncta  resignoy 

But  I  will  show,  I  trust,  most  satisfactorily,  that 
the  objection  does  not  apply ;  and  this  for  three 
reasons,  any  one  of  which  might  alone  be  con- 
sidered a  sufficient  reply.  First,  the  magistrate's 
supremacy  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  having 
been  admitted  on  the  condition  of  protection  of 
property,  but  on  another  condition,  which  is  not 
fulfilled;  so  that  his  claim  to  that  supremacy  is,  in 
truth,  nullified  by  a  failure  on  his  side.  Secondly, 
even  were  this  not  so,  the  church  ought,  in  equity , 
to  be  allowed  to  retain  her  property  on  the  same 
terms  with  universities,  hospitals,  and  other  such 
public  bodies,  without  being  subjected  (even  with 
her  own  original  consent)  to  any  harder  conditions 
than  the  rest.  Lastly,  and,  above  all,  independent 
of  the  foregoing  considerations,   the  state  is  not 


AND    TOLERATION.  IS^i 

justified,  either  in  prudence  or  in  equity,  in  insist- 
ing on  the  claim  of  spiritual  supremacy  as  o.  benefit 
to  the  civil  government,  because  she  would  not 
only  be  no  loser,  but  a  very  great  gainer  by 
relinquishing  it. 

With  respect  to  the  first  point,  I  have  already 
shown,  in  my  last  letter,  that  the  supremacy  of  the 
civil  magistrate  was  admitted  on  the  understood 
condition   that  he  should  prohibit  and  punish  all 
deviations  from   the  established  religion.     Doubt- 
less this   compulsory  system  is   both  unjust  and 
impolitic ;  so  also  is  the  subjection  of  the  church 
to  the  state ;  but  the  question  is  not  concerning 
the  propriety  of  the   stipulations,  but  concerning 
the  fact  of  their  existence.     Now,  not  only  is  it 
evident  that  this  exercise  of  coercive  power  against 
dissent  did  exist  when  the  "  supremacy"  was  first 
allowed,  and  very  long  after,  but  I  think  no  can- 
did inquirer  can  doubt  that,  in  the  minds  of  all 
parties,  these  two  things  were  considered  as  the 
equivalents  for  each  other,  and  corresponding  con- 
ditions.    It  is  plain,  even  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  abstractedly,  that  the  fair  equivalent  for  mere 
protection  of  property  is  the  employment  of  that 
property  harmlessly,   and,  on   the   whole,   bene- 
ficially ;    and   that  the  equivalent  for  giving  the 
civil  governor  spiritual  control   over  the  church 
and  supremacy  in  religious  affairs  is,  that  he,  on 
his  part,  should   allow  of  no  other  religion,  but 
should  henceforth  consider  an  offence  against  the 
church  as  an  offence  against  the  state.     And  that 
m2 


138  ON   RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

this  was,  in  fact,  the  understanding  of  all  parties, 
seems  evident,  not  only  from  the  existence  of 
penal  laws  against  dissenters,  and  from  the  gen- 
eral tone  in  which  King  James  declared  that  he 
"  would  admit  of  no  departure  from  the  articles 
or  the  liturgy  in  any  degree,"  but  also  from  one 
of  the  articles  themselves  ;  that  which,  while  it 
asserts  the  king's  supremacy,  explains  the  term  as 
signifying  his  "  authority  to  restrain,  by  the  civil 
sword,  the  stubborn  and  evil-doers  :"  now,  since 
no  one  could  ever  have  disputed  his  authority  to 
punish  civil  offences,  this  explanation  would  be 
nugatory  and  impertinent,  if,  under  the  term  "  evil- 
doers," schismatics  and  other  religious  offenders 
were  not  meant  to  be  included ;  not  to  mention 
that  his  authority  is  at  the  same  time  declared  to 
be  the  same  as  that  of  "  all  godly  princes  men- 
tioned in  Scripture,"  of  whom  the  far  greater  part 
— the  kings  of  Israel — were,  we  know,  authorized 
to  punish  offences  of  this  description. 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  the  coercive  en- 
forcement of  conformity  is  the  natural,  and  was 
the  understood  equivalent  for  the  control  exercised 
by  the  secular  power  over  the  church ;  and  that 
all  claim  to  the  latter  is  rendered  null  by  the  dis- 
continuance of  the  former. 

But  even  were  this  not  the  case  ;  were  the  con- 
dition on  the  one  side  to  be  considered  binding, 
when  the  corresponding  condition  on  the  other  is 
not  fulfilled,  still  it  would  be,  as  I  have  said,  a 
hard  and  iniquitous  condition    that  the  church 


AND    TOLERATION.  139 

should  not  be  allowed  to  retain  her  property  on 
the  same  terms  with  other  bodies  corporate,  nor 
to  enjoy,  in  common  with  them,  the  protection  of 
her  rights,  without  paying  a  price  for  it  which  is 
exacted  from  none  of  them. 

With  respect  to  the  last  point,  I  have  already 
shown,  in  a  former  letter,  that  the  supposed  ad- 
vantage to  the  state  derived  from  the  subjection 
of  the  church  is  altogether  unreal ;  and  that  the 
very  object  proposed  might  be  even  much  more 
effectually  obtained  without  it.  Consequently,  that 
cannot  reasonably  be  claimed  and  insisted  on  as  a 
benefit  which  is  in  reality  a  detriment. 

Let  any  one  point  out  (which  it  would  be  diffi- 
cult for  any  to  do  better  than  Warburton  has)  what 
advantages  to  the  state  are  to  be  expected  from  its 
control  over  the  church,  and  he  will  plainly  see 
that  there  is  no  one  of  them — no  legitimate  one  at 
least — which  would  not  even  be  better  secured  by 
the  emancipation  of  the  church.  As  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  Christ's  religion  in  its  purity,  I  have 
already  remarked  that  that  object  will  be  the  bet- 
ter attained  the  less  the  civil  magistrate  interferes 
in  religious  concerns  ;  there  is  no  reason  why  he 
should  be  the  best  judge  in  such  matters ;  and  if 
he  were,  the  temporal  power,  which  is  the  instru- 
ment he  w^orks  with,  is  the  one  most  unfit  to  be 
employed  in  such  a  case  ;  and  it  is,  indeed,  clearly 
unjustifiable  in  the  government  of  a  kingdom  not 
of  this  world.  The  other  proposed  advantages 
are,  that  the  influence  of  religion  may  be  turned  ta 


140  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

the  service  of  the  state,  and  that  the  evils  v^rhic; 
might  accrue  from  the  church  in  its  natural  inde- 
pendent condition  may  be  avoided. 

Novvr,  let  any  statesman  but  reflect  how  earnestly 
and  repeatedly  Christians  are  enjoined  to  submit, 
for  conscience'  sake,  to  every  ordinance  of  man, 
and  to  pray  for  even  pagan  rulers  ;  and  then  let 
him  consider  whether  a  civil  governor  is  not  cast- 
ing discredit  either  on  himself  or  on  the  religion 
whose  support  he  seeks  in  proclaiming  his  distrust 
of  the  readiness  of  Christian  ministers  to  teach 
those  lessons  of  obedience  to  the  existing  govern- 
ment, which  any  but  the  most  detestable  tyrant 
might  naturally  expect  from  them  ;  in  employing 
those  compulsory  means  of  securing  their  alle- 
giance, which  such  a  tyrant  might  employ  just  as 
easily  as  a  good  prince,  and  which  none  but  a  ty- 
rant need  resort  to.  Why  should  the  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  even  supposing  them  ill  imbued  with 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  preach  rebellion  ?  Men 
who  possess  property  have  a  stake  in  the  country  ; 
and  are,  therefore,  from  mere  interested  motives, 
seldom  the  advocates  of  revolution,  which,  they 
must  know,  generally  leads  to  a  wreck  of  property. 
And  it  should  be  remembered,  also,  that  that  which 
the  clergy  possess  is,  great  part  of  it,  disposed  of 
by  state  patronage.  Would  not  the  inculcation  of 
the  duty  of  submission  to  the  laws  and  quiet  be- 
haviour come  with  a  better  grace  (as  well  as  pray- 
ers for  the  king  and  parliament)  from  the  mouths 
of  men  who,  though  still  subjects,  and  still,  more  or 


AND    TOLERATION.  141 

less,  interested  in  the  stability  of  the  government, 
were  yet  left  to  themselves  in  respect  of  religious 
concerns,  and  acknowledged  no  supremacy  of  the 
civil  magistrate,  except  in  civil  matters,  and  in  as 
far  as  they  were,  individually,  subjects  of  the  state  ? 
They  might  still  be  suspected,  indeed,  in  many  in- 
stances, of  hunting  for  preferment.  So  they  are 
now ;  sometimes  with  reason,  and  sometimes  with- 
out. But  whatever  change  did  take  place  would 
he  for  the  better,  in  respect  of  their  influence  with 
the  people.  The  unfavourable  suspicions  against 
them  would  be  mitigated  at  least,  if  not  removed. 
They  could  not,  at  least,  be  accused  of  teaching  a 
parliamentary  religion ;  of  having  articles  and  lit- 
urgy imposed  on  them  by  secular  authority  ;  of 
being  ordained  by  bishops,  themselves  ordained  by 
command  of  the  civil  power  ;  in  short,  of  being  in 
no  degree  free-agents.  Their  influence,  therefore, 
would  be  increased  ;  and  that  increased  influence 
would  be  as  much  directed  as  now  towards  the 
support  of  legitimate  government.  But  the  error 
which  statesmen  have  committed  consists  in  this  ; 
that  they  estimated  highly,  and  justly,  the  impor- 
tance of  religious  influence  in  making  men  good 
subjects,  and  eagerly  coveted  to  secure  the  advan- 
tage of  such  influence  in  their  own  favour,  without 
considering  that  it  rests  on  opinion ;  and  that,  con- 
sequently, the  means  they  adopted  to  obtain  it  ma- 
terially diminished  its  weight.  The  church,  when 
made  a  subject-ally  of  the  state,  cannot  give  it  the 
same  support  as  when  independent ;  because  it  is 


142  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

her  independence  that  gives  her  dignity^  and  pro- 
cures for  her  veneration ;  and  it  is  on  these  that 
her  power  over  men's  minds  must  depend. 

But  there  is  another  error  which  has  helped  to 
strengthen  the  former,  and  has  contributed,  with  it, 
to  lead  to  the  same  result.  The  statesman  looks 
to  the  dissenters,  and  observing  the  disaffection  of 
many  of  them,  exclaims,  "  See  what  the  church 
would  be  if  left  in  her  original  independent  condi- 
tion !  See  what  an  organ  of  sedition  the  pulpit 
may  be  made,  and  is  made,  when  not  under  the 
control  of  the  civil  power  !"  This  fallacy,  gross  as 
it  is,  seems  to  have  misled  the  great  Warburton. 
But  can  any  reasoning  be  more  fallacious  than  to 
infer  a  natural  and  necessary  tendency  in  the 
Christian  religion  to  produce  disaffection,  from  the 
hostility  shown  by  sectaries  to  a  government  which 
arrays  itself  on  the  side  of  their  opponents  ?  and  to 
conclude  that,  if  the  magistrate  would  leave  all  de- 
nominations of  Christians  entirely  to  themselves, 
he  would  experience  from  all,  or  from  any  of  them, 
that  unfriendly  feeling  which  he  provokes  in  one 
party  by  placing  himself  at  the  head  of  another  ? 
Dissenters,  it  is  true,  are  tolerated;  and  doubtless 
would,  of  the  two,  choose  rather  to  be  tolerated 
than  persecuted  ;  but  they  are  indignant  at  the 
very  name  of  "  toleration."  Being  naturally  and 
necessarily  opposed  to  the  Church  of  England,  they 
feel  that  they  must  be  objects  of  jealousy  to  him 
who  is  the  head  of  that  church  ;  and  they  feel,  con- 
sequently, a  corresponding  jealousy  towards  him. 


AND    TOLERATION.  143 

It  is  not  because  he  is  supposed  to  be,  as  an  indi- 
vidual j  of  a  different  persuasion  from  them  ;  but 
that  as  a  magistrate  he  is,  ex  officio,  the  ecclesias- 
tical governor  of  their  opponents.  He  is  made  a 
part  of  the  system  to  which  they  are  adverse  ;  and 
their  religious  principles  are  thus  called  into  play- 
in  hostility  to  the  government.  And  thus  it  is 
that  the  liability  of  the  pulpit  to  become  the  organ 
of  sedition  is  produced  ;  because  the  preacher  who 
assails  your  fafth  feels  that  he  is  virtually  opposing 
the  "  defender  of  that  faith :"  in  attacking  the 
church,  he  cannot  but  be  conscious  that  he  is  in 
some  sense  encountering  its  supreme  governor. 
One  who  can  attribute  the  hostility  thus  generated, 
not  to  the  circumstances  which  so  plainly  tend  to 
produce  it,  but  to  the  genius  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion itself,  when  left  uncontrolled,  and  who  can 
persuade  himself  that  the  same  would  have  been 
the  case  had  the  state  never  identified  itself  with 
the  church,  nor  interfered  in  its  concerns,  must 
be  beyond  the  reach  of  instruction  even  from  ex- 
perience ;  otherwise  I  might  appeal  to  the  exam- 
ple, alluded  to  in  a  former  letter,  of  the  Presbyte- 
rians of  Great  Britain,  who  have  always  been  hos- 
tile or  friendly  to  the  government,  according  as  it 
was  or  was  not  identified  with  the  church  which 
they  opposed  ;  or  to  the  case  of  the  United  States ; 
to  the  government  of  which  all  varieties  of  sects 
are  alike  well-affected,  because  it  does  not  make  it- 
self the  head  of  any  one  of  them,  nor  interfere  at 
all  in  spiritual  concerns  ;  but  is  content  to  exercise 


144  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

civil  control  over  every  individual,  of  whatever 
persuasion. 

Now  I  have  adverted  to  the  case  of  the  Ameri- 
cans, I  will  remark,  by  the  way,  that  though  1 
would  not  pretend  to  hold  them  up  as  a  model  to 
others  in  what  regards  religion,  yet  I  do  think 
they  are  perfectly  right  in  considering  the  govern- 
ment itself  as  of  no  religion  at  all.  This  very 
determination  has,  I  know,  occasioned  an  outcry 
against  them  from  some  who  do  not  understand 
"  what  manner  of  spirit  they  are  of ;"  as  if  it  im- 
plied that  they  were  a  nation  of  atheists.  But  it 
does  not  at  all  follow,  that  because  the  state,  as  a 
hodyj  is  of  no  religion,  therefore  the  individuals 
who  compose  it,  whether  governors  or  subjects, 
are  of  no  religion.  For,  in  truth,  the  state  (as 
Warburton  has  well  remarked)  is  not  properly  a 
subject  of  religion.  The  Jewish  nation  was,  indeed, 
constituted  such  by  express  Divine  appointment ; 
public  worship  and  sacrifice,  by  and  on  behalf  of 
the  state,  was  ordained  ;  and  national  blessings 
or  calamities  were  among  the  chief  sanctions  of 
the  Mosaic  law.  But  with  Christianity  the  case 
is  far  otherwise.  It  was  designed  for  individual 
believers,  as  individuals,  and  as  united  in  a  spiritual 
community,  the  church ;  political  bodies  it  does 
not  recognise.  They  may  be  composed  of  the 
very  same  individuals,  but  they  cannot  be,  as 
political  bodies,  subjects  of  the  Christian  religion. 
Of  that  religion  the  object  is  the  salvation  of  souls ; 
and  it  forbids  all  temporal  means  of  coercion ;  the 


AND    TOLERATION.  l46 

magistrate  is  authorized  and  bound  to  employ 
coercion  in  his  own  proper  province;  which  is, 
hot  the  salvation  of  souls,  but  the  preservation  of 
peace  and  temporal  prosperity.  He  may  be  a 
very  zealous  Christian,  and  will  doubtless  be  the 
better  magistrate  for  being  such ;  but  his  zeal 
would  be,  to  say  the  least,  "  a  zeal  not  according 
to  knowledge,"  if  he  infringed  the  principles  of  the 
gospel  by  endeavouring  to  make  Christ's  an  earth- 
ly kingdom,  and  employing  temporal  power  in 
his  cause. 

The  censure  so  hastily  passed  on  the  American 
government  might  just  as  well  be  applied  to  any 
agricultural  society ;  none  of  which,  that  I  ever 
heard  of,  is  of  any  religion,  as  a  body,  though  all 
its  members  may  be  good  Christians.  But  be- 
cause Christianity  is  useful  to  the  state,  as  it  cer- 
tainly is,  shallow  reasoners  are  thus  led  to  forget 
that  the  state  itself  is  not  a  subject  of  that  religion, 
nor  can  lawfully  interfere  in  its  concerns  ;  and 
that  while  Christ,  in  "making  himself  a  king, 
speaketh"  nothing  "  against  Csesar,"  he  requires 
us  to  "render  unto  Csesar  and  unto  God"  the 
things  that  belong  to  each.  The  only  way  in 
which  the  members  of  the  government  can  allow- 
ably give  effect,  in  their  public  capacity,  to  the  con- 
viction they  may  feel  of  the  usefulness  of  any  re- 
ligion, is  by  securing  (or,  if  they  think  fit,  increas- 
ing) the  endowments  appropriated  to  it,  and  by 
defending  its  professors   (in  common,   however, 

N 


146  ON   RELIGIOUS   ESTABLISHMENTS 

with  those  of  any  other  religion)  from  mob-perse- 
cution, insult,  and  libel. 

,,  The  conclusion,  then,  which  both  reason  and 
experience  must  dictate  to  any  man  of  candour 
and  sense  is,  that  if  all  subjection  of  the  church 
to  the  state  were  at  an  end,  except  the  subjection 
of  each  individual  Christian,  in  his  capacity  of 
citizen^  to  the  civil  government ;  if  the  secular 
power  renounced  all  supremacy  and  all  interfe- 
rence in  religious  concerns,  and  merely  secured, 
to  all  descriptions  of  persons,  the  property  they 
now  possess,  so  long  as  it  should  appear  to  be,  on 
the  whole,  not  mischievously  nor  uselessly  em- 
ployed ;  that  if  this,  I  say,  were  done,  the  loyalty 
of  the  ministers  of  the  Church  of  England  would 
remain  undiminished  ;  their  influence,  and  power 
to  inculcate  such  principles  on  the  people,  would 
be  much  increased  ;  and  the  disloyalty  which  may 
exist  in  any  sects  of  dissenters  would  be  dimin- 
ished, and  would  gradually  die  away.  The  state, 
consequently,  would  be  no  loser,  but  a  very 
GREAT  GAINER,  in  rcspcct  of  the  objects  proposed 
by  the  now  subsisting  alliance,  were  the  terms  of 
that  alliance  completely  changed,  and  all  claim  of 
supremacy  dropped. 

I  have  also  shown,  that  even  if  that  were  a 
political  benefit  which  has  just  been  proved  to  be 
detrimental  to  the  government,  it  still  would  not 
be  equitable  to  require  and  insist  on  from  the 
church  harder  terms  than  those  required  from 
other  bodies,  as  the  condition  of  enjoying  mere 


AND    TOLERATION.  147 

security  of  property,  even  were  such  conditions 
part  of  the  original  compact ;  but  this,  also,  I  have 
shown  is  not  the  case  ;  since  the  supremacy  of  the 
civil  power  must  be  considered  as  having  been  the 
understood  equivalent  for  the  employment  of  coer- 
cion to  enforce  conformity  ;  a  condition  which  is 
no  longer  fulfilled. 

The  connexion,  then,  such  as  it  now  subsists, 
between  the  state  and  the  church,  which  some, 
both  statesmen  and  churchmen,  from  confused  or 
partial  and  imperfect  views  of  the  subject,  are  so 
anxious  to  maintain,  is  not  only  in  principle  unjus- 
tifiable, but  is,  in  every  point,  inexpedient  for  both 
parties ;  each  of  whom  would  obtain  the  very 
objects  proposed  (and  others  besides)  much  more 
easily  and  eflfectually  if  the  system  were  altered. 
And  the  advantage  of  a  fixed  and  established 
maintenance  for  the  clergy  (certainly  a  most  im- 
portant one)  is  in  no  respect  dependant  on,  or 
necessarily  connected  with,  that  unscriptural  and 
absurd  amalgamation  of  spiritual  things  with  tem- 
poral which  I  have  been  deprecating.  The  state 
derives  far  less  efficient  support  from  those  within 
the  church,  and  incurs  far  greater  danger  from 
those  without,  than  if  its  interference  with  religion 
were  at  an  end ;  and  the  church,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  crippled  and  paralyzed  in  all  its  move- 
ments by  the  unfitting  and  injurious  aid  which  is 
aflforded  by  the  secular  power.  Were  expediency, 
real  expediency,  made  a  plea  for  profaning  Christ's 
spiritual  kingdom,  it  ought  not  to  be  admitted ; 


148  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABIilSHMENTS 

but,  in  this  case,  right  views  even  of  expediency 
alone  dictate  an  opposite  course ;  so  that  the  error 
is  no  longer  excusable. 

A  few  words,  before  I  conclude,  on  the  subject 
of  toleration.  I  have  said  that  the  dissenters  are 
indignant  at  the  name  of  "  toleration  ;"  and  I  can- 
not but  think  it  would  be  better  laid  aside.  Jt 
would  never,  I  think,  have  been  employed,  in  ref- 
erence to  the  procedure  of  any  community,  had 
any  distinct  meaning  been  attached  to  the  word. 
Toleration  implies  two  things  ;  disapprobation,  and 
abstinence  from  the  infliction  of  any  piunishment, 
or  exercise  of  any  act  of  hostility.  \i  is,  therefore, 
a  branch  of  Christian  charity,  to  be  practised  by 
individuals.  They  ought  to  make  allowance  for 
the  faults  or  errors  of  their  neighbours  ;  to  prac- 
tise mildness,  gentleness,  forbearance,  towards  such 
as  in  their  own  conscience  they  believe  to  be  wrong  ; 
to  abstain  from  severity  of  censure  and  unkind 
treatment  towards  those  whose  doctrine  or  prac- 
tice their  own  private  judgment  condemns.  To 
speak,  then,  of  any  community  being  tolerant,  in 
this  the  obvious  and  proper  sense  of  the  word,  is 
unmeaning.  A  community,  for  instance  a  church 
or  a  state,  is  no  really  existent  person ;  but  is  con- 
sidered as  such  only  in  respect  of  its  institutions 
and  public  acts.  Independent  of  these,  it  has  no 
conscience,  no  judgment,  no  approbation  or  disap- 
probation^ no  opinion  or  belief.  When  a  state  is 
said  to  "judge"  such  and  such  a  kind  of  conduct 
or  principle  to  be  faulty,  this  or  that  act  to  be  an 


AND   TOLERATION.  149 

offence,  the  meaning  is,  that  it  has  laws  against 
them,  denouncing  penalties,  either  positive  or  nega- 
tive ;  either  fine,  imprisonment,  &c.,  or  privations 
and  disabilities.  For  the  state  never  speaks  but 
in  its  laws,  and  the  law  never  speaks  but  to 
command  or  forbid,  and  that  under  a  penalty. 
Now  the  state,  or  any  other  community,  cannot 
be  said  to  tolerate  that  against  which  it  has  a  law  ; 
and  anything  against  which  it  has  no  law  it  can- 
not be.  said  to  disapprove,  whatever  may  be  the 
private  opinion  of  the  individuals  who  administer 
its  affairs.  The  two  points,  then,  which  go  to 
make  up  the  idea  of  toleration  (viz..  disapprobation, 
and  abstinence  from  punishment)  in  the  case  of  a 
community  can  never  be  combined ;  whatever,  as 
a  body,  it  disapproves,  it  prohibits  and  punishes ; 
whatever  it  permits,  it  does  not,  as  a  body,  disap- 
prove. If  nonconformity  be,  in  the  eye  of  the 
state,  an  offence,  it  ought  to  he  punished ;  if  wo  pun- 
ishment is  denounced  against  it  by  the  state,  that 
is  the  same  thing  as  to  declare  that,  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  it  is  no  offence.  In  like  manner,  if  the 
church  condemn  any  doctrine  or  practice,  it  must, 
of  course,  prohibit  it,  under  an  ecclesiastical  pen- 
alty ;  whatever  it  does  not  prohibit,  is  no  heresy 
or  offence  in  the  eye  of  the  church,  whatever  may 
be  the  private  opinion  of  this  or  that  individual 
member.  For  instance,"  whether  angels  are  em- 
ployed in  ministering  to  Christians  on  earth  or 
not,"  is  a  question  on  which  only  one  opinion  can 
be  true  ;  but  if  neither  is  made  an  article  of  faith^ 
n2 


150  ON   RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

neither  is  condemned  by  liie  church,  as  a  commu- 
nity, nor  can,  therefore,  be  a  matter  of  toleration. 
And  as  the  state  has  no  right  to  consider  any  re- 
ligious opinion  as  a  crime  in  itself,  it  has  nothing 
whatever  to  do  with  religious  toleration. 

It  is  true  that  a  community  may  err  by  multi- 
plying enactments  unnecessarily,  respecting  unim-r 
portant  matters  ;  or  by  visiting  light  offences  with 
heavy  penalties ;  or  it  may  keep  clear  of  this 
error ;  and  in  this  sense  it  may  be  said  to  be  of 
an  "  intolerant"  spirit,  on  the  contrary.  But  thi^ 
is  a  misuse  of  terms,  which  serves  no  purpose  but 
to  confuse  men's  notions.  It  would  be,  for  in- 
stance, an  impertinent  innovation  in  language  to 
say  that  various  modes  of  dress  are  tolerated  by 
the  government  of  Great  Britain ;  meaning  that, 
while,  at  one  time,  in  Russia,  a  particular  fashion 
was  prescribed  by  the  emperor,  to  which  all  were 
compelled  to  conform,  in  England,  on  the  contrary, 
every  one  is  free  to  dress  as  he  pleases ;  or  to 
speak  of  the  tolerance  of  your  laws  with  respect  to 
petty  larceny  ;  because  that  offence  is  not  pun- 
ished so  severely  as  burglary. 

Dissenters,  then,  might  complain  of  want  of  tol- 
eration, in  a  certain  sense,  by  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land (though  it  would  be  more  properly  called 
needless  scrupulosity),  if  she  excluded  them  from 
her  communion  on  account  of  trifling  points  of  doc- 
trine or  discipline.  In  truth,  that  is  precisely  the 
complaint  which  she  may  fairly  make  against 
them ;  most  of  them  having,  in  the  first  instance. 


AND    TOLERATION,        ,  1§1 

withdrawn  from  her  communion,  of  their  own  ao- 
cord,  on  the  most  frivolous  grounds,  and  without 
even  waiting  to  complain  or  remonstrate.  But  to 
speak  of  their  toleration  by  the  state  is  intrinsically 
absurd  ;  it  implies  that  the  same  thing  is  at  once  a 
political  offence  and  no  political  offence. 

It  is  not,  however,  a  mere  inaccuracy  of  language 
that  I  am  objecting  to  ;  the  word  toleration,  by  car- 
rying with  it  a  notion  of  censure  and  disapproba- 
tion, tends  unnecessarily  to  exasperate  the  feelings 
of  dissenters  ;  and,  together  with  the  civil  magis- 
trate's supremacy  in  the  Church  of  England,  con- 
tributes to  make  them  feel  themselves  a  proscribed 
party,  who  owe  the  government  no  kindly  feeling. 
It  is,  in  short,  of  a  piece  with  the  folly  of  the  Sam- 
nite  general,  who  made  his  prisoners  pass  under 
the  yoke^  and  then  dismissed  them,  irritated,  but  not 
disabled. 

You  suggested  to  me,  I  remember,  that  if  the 
Church  of  England  were  no  longer  recognised  as 
a  part  of  the  political  constitution  of  the  state,  the 
sectaries  might  come  forward  to  assert  a  claim  to 
a  share  of  her  revenues ;  urging  that  the  ministers 
of  one  persuasion  have  as  good  a  right  to  tithes  as 
another,  when  no  one  is  the  religion  of  the  state. 
Very  likely  they  might  do  this ;  they  can  hardly 
be  more  jealous  of  the  property  of  your  church 
than  they  are  already.  But  there  are  only  two 
points  to  be  considered :  whether  there  would  be 
zxij  justice  in  their  claim,  and  whether  they  would 
have  power  to  carry  it  into  effect.     I  think  neither. 


15S  ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS 

If  the  revenues  of  the  church  were,  what  they  are 
not,  a  payment  by  the  state  out  of  the  public  reve- 
nues, it  would  be  most  unreasonable  to  demand  that 
the  state  should  withdraw  part  of  that  payment 
from  those  who  now  receive  it,  on  the  ground  that 
they  would  no  longer  recognise  the  supremacy  of  the 
civil  power,  and  bestow  it  on  others  who  equally 
refuse  to  admit  this  supremacy.  If  a  man  with- 
holds the  wages  of  a  servant  who  refuses  to  work 
for  him,  he  will  surely  either  keep  them  to  himself, 
or  pay  them  to  another  who  will  work  for  him  ;  but, 
in  reality,  there  is  no  payment  in  the  question.  I 
know  the  dissenters  are  apt  to  cast  into  the  teeth 
of  your  clergy  that  they  byq  paid  for  their  preach- 
ing ;  though,  in  reality,  they  are  the  only  ministers 
of  religion  in  England  who  are  not.  All  dissent- 
ing teachers  are  dependant  on  contributions  put 
into  the  plate ;  on  the  letting  of  pews  in  chapels ; 
or,  in  some  way  or  other,  on  the  wages  their  con- 
gregations choose  to  pay  them.  On  the  contrary, 
that  which  is  paid  to  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England  is  not  paid,  in  the  same  sense  of  the  word, 
any  more  than  a  legacy  is  paid  by  an  executor, 
whose  property  it  is  not,  nor  ever  was.  And  the 
Church  of  England  has  the  same  equitable  title  to 
what  she  now  possesses,  as  colleges,  hospitals,  and 
other  such  institutions  have  to  their  respective 
possessions.  The  projected  London  University 
might  as  well  claim  a  share  of  the  revenues  of  Ox- 
ford and  Cambridge,  and  of  the  Scotch  and  Irish 
universities  (of  none  of  which  the  civil  magistrate 


AND    TOLERATION.  153 

is  the  academical,  but  only  the  civil  ruler),  as  the 
dissenters  could  of  the  property  actually  in  posses- 
sion of  the  church.  A9  for  any  portion  p^f  the  na- 
tional wealth  which  might  hereafter  be  set  apart  for 
religious  purposes,  by  all  means  let  any  sect  come 
forward  and  urge  its  claims,  and  support  the m  fey 
such  arguments  as  it  thinks  best.  But  that  is  quite 
^  cji|iereiit  question. 

'    ' ' '  •■  *  ' '  ■     n&if ,  yap  Toi  5d)ffov(Tt  yipns — 

OvSs  Ti  TTO)  Ufi^v  SrNHIA  Kiifitva  raWif 

'AXXa — To,  SiSaarai' 

Aaovs  ovK  enioiKS  IIAAIAAOrA  rSvT  iirayiipeiv. 

As  for  the  power  of  the  sectaries  to  make  good 
such  an  unreasonable  demand,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that 
the  government  of  Britain  will  never  want  either 
the  will  or  the  strength  to  protect  one  part  of  her 
subjects  from  being  plundered  by  another.  She 
might  answer,  and  I  trust  would  answer,  to  such 
claimants,  ^'  You  have  seminaries,  chapels,  minis- 
ter's houses,  and  other  such  property  for  the  ben- 
efit of  your  own  religious  communities,  to  which 
the  Church  of  England  lays  no  claim:  why  should 
you  claim  her  property  ?  It  is  true,  your  posses- 
sions are  very  small  in  comparison  of  hers  ;  so  are 
your  numbers  ;  but  they  are  also,  we  allow,  much 
less  in  proportion  to  your  numbers.  What  then  ? 
If  mere  inequality  of  wealth  is  to  be  admitted  as  a 
ground  for  a  redistribution,  there  is  an  end  of  so- 
ciety. Any  one  of  you  who  possesses  anything, 
must  on  that  principle  admit  the  claim  of  any  poor 
man,  who  may  urge  that  his  neighbour  has  more 


164        ON    RELIGIOUS    ESTABLISHMENTS,    ETC. 

than  enough  for  a  subsistence,  and  that  he  himself 
would  be  glad  of  a  share  ;  by  which  rule,  a  gen- 
eral pillage  of  the  rich  by  the  poor  must  ensue. 
Covet  not,  then,  what  belongs  to  another,  but  seek 
by  honest  means  to  provide  supplies  for  your  own 
wants." 

Nothing  could  be  more  just  than  such  a  reply  ; 
and  none,  I  conceive,  would  be  more  likely  to  be 
given;  for  the  British  government  has  always 
shown  a  laudable  caution  in  meddling  with  the 
rights  of  her  subjects,  whether  individuals  or  cor- 
porations, to  their  actual  property.  And  when 
legislators  once  come  to  perceive  clearly  that  the 
state  would  be  a  gainer  by  the  emancipation  of 
the  church,  I  think  they  will  be  ready  to  concede 
it  without  making  the  sacrifice  of  her  revenues  the 
price  of  it ;  since  they  are  well  aware,  that  when 
once  a  precedent  is  given,  the  fashion  of  spoliation 
is  of  all  infections  the  most  apt  to  spread. 

Of  the  consequences,  however,  which  may  be 
expected  to  ensue  from  the  adoption  of  such  meas- 
ures as  I  have  been  recommending,  I  will  take  a 
more  detailed  view  in  another  letter. 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      155 


LETTER  VI. 

CONSEQUENCES  OF  THE  EMANCIPATION  OF  THE 
CHURCH. 

My  dear , 

The  principal  effect  I  should  look  for  from  the 
adoption  of  such  nfieasures  as  I  have  been  recom- 
mending is,  the  blessing  of  our  great  Master  upon 
your  endeavours  to  further  the  proper  objects  of 
his  heavenly  kingdom.  He  has  promised  that 
**  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it ;" 
and  that  he  "  vs^ill  be  v^^ith  it  always,  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world ;"  and  each  particular  branch 
of  his  church  ought  to  rely  on  that  his  promise, 
so  far,  and  so  far  only,  as  they  comply  with  his  in- 
junctions and  conform  to  the  spirit  of  his  gospel. 

I  am  not  one  of  those,  however,  who  look  for 
miraculous  interferences  ;  but  I  conceive  that  God 
has  so  appointed  things,  that  a  diligent  compliance 
with  his  will,  as  it  is  the  condition,  shall  be  also 
the  natural  means,  through  the  ordinary  course  of 
his  providence,  of  obtaining  that  success  which  is 
its  promised  reward.  If,  indeed,  we  were  in  any 
case  unable  to  perceive  in  what  manner  a  con- 
formity to  the  Divine  laws  could  tend  to  bring 
about  the  ends  proposed,  it  would  yet  evidently 
argue  a  culpable  want  of  faith  to  hesitate,  for  that 


156  CONSEQUENCES    OP   THE 

reason,  in  obeying  them ;  but  in  the  present  in- 
stance it  is  possible  to  understand,  in  great  meas- 
ure, the  natural  tendency  of  a  system  of  conduct 
carefully  modelled  upon  the  precepts  of  the  gospel, 
to  promote  those  objects  for  the  sake  of  which  the 
church  was  instituted,  viz.,  the  immediate  one,  of 
purity  of  worship  ;  and  the  ultimate  one,  the  sal- 
vation of  souls.  I  have  already  given  several 
hints  of  this  in  the  preceding  letters;  and  I  will 
make  it  clear,  I  trust,  in  almost  every  point,  that 
the  Supreme  Controller  of  human  affairs  has  so 
admirably  conformed  his  system  to  the  nature  of 
man,  that  the  most  exact  and  implicit  observance 
of  the  spirit  of  his  directions  will  be  ever  the  most 
effectual  way  of  accomplishing  the  designs  pro- 
posed ;  even  where  man,  trusting  to  his  own  judg- 
ment, would  have  thought  far  otherwise  ;  and  that 
all  departures  from  such  principles,  and  adoption 
of  such  means  for  maintaining  and  promoting  true 
religion,  as  the  most  ingenious  human  policy  can 
devise,  never  fail  to  defeat  the  end  in  view.  And 
from  this  consideration,  by-the-way,  may  be  in- 
ferred the  Divine  origin  of  our  religion ;  at  least, 
which  comes  to  the  same,  that  it  is  a  system  con- 
trived by  some  intellectual  power  surpassing  that 
of  the  wisest  legislators ;  for  otherwise  it  would 
have  prescribed  means  for  the  attainment  of  its 
proposed  objects,  such  as  political  ingenuity  would 
dictate ;  if,  therefore,  we  find,  on  the  contrary, 
sbch  a  mode  of  procedure  enjoined  by  its  Founder 
and  his  apostles  as  human  ingenuity  would  con- 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      157 

sider  not  the  wisest  and  most  effectual ;  if  we  find 
skilful  men  in  all  ages  departing  more  or  less  from 
the  principles  of  the  gospel  in  their  endeavours  to 
further  the  cause  of  Christianity,  either  from  over- 
looking those  principles  or  distrusting  their  effi- 
cacy ;  if  we  find  that  in  proportion  as  they  have 
done  so  they  have  failed  of  their  object ;  and  if 
we  find,  on  reconsidering  the  matter,  under  the 
guidance  of  experience,  that  there  is  every  reason 
to  expect  better  success  from  a  closer  conformity 
to  the  principles  that  had  been  abandoned  ;  if,  I 
say,  we  find  all  this  to  be  the  case,  we  cannot  re- 
fuse our  admiration  to  the  superhuman  wisdom  of 
the  Founder  of  our  faith  ;  and  we  may  urge 
against  the  infidel,  without  fear  of  refutation,  that 
had  Jesus  been  a  mere  human  pretender,  he  would 
have  directed  the  adoption  either  of  such  a  system 
as  human  wisdom  would  suggest,  or  else  of  such 
a  one  as  would  fail  of  the  objects  proposed ;  in- 
stead of  which  he  has  prescribed  rules,  of  which, 
even  when  suggested,  scarcely  any  one  ever  has 
understood  the  expediency  ;  and  which  men,  when 
trusting  to  their  own  judgment,  have  always  de- 
parted from  ;  and  which  yet  appear,  upon  trial,  to 
be  the  only  ones  that  prove  effectual. 

This  is  an  argument  which  appears  to  me  nearly 
decisive.  For  suppose  but  the  case  of  a  master- 
builder,  a  physician,  or  other  artist,  dictating  such 
a  mode  of  procedure  to  those  under  him  as  appears 
to  them  quite  inadequate  and  unsuitable  to  the  pro- 
posed object ;  and  most  of  them,  accordingly,  disre- 
o 


158  CONSEQUENCES    OP   THE 

gard  his  directions,  and  try  their  own  way ;  they  suc- 
ceed very  ill ;  and  then,  on  reconsidering  the  mat- 
ter;  reflecting  on  the  causes  of  their  failure  ;  and 
oUserving  the  better  success  of  those  workmen  who 
had  adhered  more  implicitly  to  the  method  pointed 
out  to  them,  they  are  at  length  convinced  that  this, 
and  this  alone,  will  secure  the  proposed  object ; 
will  they  not  then  have,  on  the  best  grounds,  the 
fullest  conviction  that  the  master  knew,  much  bet- 
ter than  any  of  them,  how  to  accomplish  his  pur- 
pose? And  would  they  not,  I  may  add,  unless 
strangely  stupid  and  perverse,  place  the  most  un- 
doubting  confidence  in  him  for  the  future,  even  in 
other  cases  where  they  might  not  perceive  the  wis- 
dom of  his  designs? 

How  detrimental  to  the  cause  of  true  religion 
have  proved  many  of  the  measures  adopted  with 
a  view  to  promote  it — measures  devised  by  self- 
sufl[icient  man,  and  at  variance  with  the  principles 
of  the  gospel — I  have,  in  several  instances,  pointed 
out ;  and  in  so  doing  I  have  adverted  incidentally 
to  some  of  the  advantages  to  be  looked  for,  on  the 
principles  of  mere  human  calculation,  from  a  quite 
opposite  course.  But  it  may  be  worth  while  to 
sum  up,  and  present  to  your  consideration,  in  a 
more  connected  manner,  some  of  the  principal  of 
those  benefits.  It  must  be  remembered,  however, 
if  we  would  come  to  a  right  conclusion  on  this 
point,  what  the  objects  are  that  the  sincere  followers 
of  Christ  ought  chiefly  to  aim  at,  viz.,  not  the  mere 
increase  of  the  number  of  nominal  Christians — the 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      159 

augmentation  of  the  crop  by  an  admixture  of  tares, 
or  the  loading  the  "  net  cast  into  the  sea"  by  aug- 
menting the  multitude  of  the  worthless  fishes  that 
are  to  be  thrown  away — but  the  increase  of  the 
numbers,  and  of  the  moral  excellence,  of  sincere 
Christians;  the  ''coming  of  Christ's  kingdom"  in 
the  hearts  of  men,  and  the  doing  of  "  his  will  on 
earth  as  in  heaven."  In  this  way  it  is  that  the 
church  may  be  in  reality  gaining  ground,  when,  at 
the  first  glance,  it  might  appear  to  be  falling  back. 
The  first  and  principal  advantage,  then,  which, 
through  the  Divine  blessing,  I  should  expect  to  ac- 
crue to  your  church  from  a  closer  adherence  to  the 
principles  of  the  gospel,  is  an  increased  purity  in 
the  faith,  the  worship,  and  the  conduct  of  her  mem- 
bers. No  longer  paralyzed  by  unfitting  aid  from  the 
"  arm  of  flesh,"  she  would  be  enabled,  without  incur- 
ring the  guilt  and  the  odium  of  persecution,  to  en- 
force primitive  discipline  ;  and,  in  the  last  resort,  to 
expel,  as  all  other  religious  societies  do  that  are  not 
dependant  on  the  stale,  those  who  were  obstinately 
disobedient  or  incorrigible.  This  restoration  of 
ancient  discipline  your  church  (in  the  Commina- 
tion-service)  speaks  of  as  "much  to  be  desired;" 
and  Warburton  also  lays  it  down  as  an  indubitable 
principle,  that  every  society  must  have  the  right  of 
excommunicating  a  member  who  will  not  comply 
with  its  regulations.  It  is  a  pity  that  those  who 
drew  up  that  Commination-service  never  considered 
what  it  is  that  prevents  the  wished- for  restoration 
of  discipline  ;  viz.,  that  it  is  the  secular  support^  by 


160  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

which  it  was  meant  to  be  enforced,  but  which,  in 
reality,  has  brought  it  to  nothing ;  since  any  enact- 
ment which  would  bring  a  man  within  the  reach  of 
temporal  penalties  for  religious  offences  would  be 
both  odious  and  unchristian. 

Again,  reforms  and  alterations,  the  improvement 
of  what  is  good,  and  the  correction  of  what  is 
faulty,  which  must  always  be  needed,  from  time  to 
time,  in  any  institution  conducted  by  fallible  men, 
might  be  introduced,  as  they  were  needed,  without 
difficulty  and  without  risk. 

I  am  far  from  wishing  for  anything  like  a  "  radical 
reform"  of  your  church,  a  complete  change  of  her 
system,  or  even  any  approach  to  it ;  but  were  she  even 
infallible,  which  is  not  pretended,  alterations  must 
be  required,  from  time  to  time,  to  meet  the  changes 
which  take  place  in  different  periods  of  society ; 
since  that  which  is  the  best  conceivable  institution 
when  enacted  cannot  possibly  always  continue  so. 
Indeed,  I  think  the  great  error  of  all  radical  reform- 
ers consists  in  this  ;  that  they  expect  their  reform, 
when  once  made,  will  last  for  ever,  and  prove  an 
eternal  barrier,  not  needing  repair,  against  the 
abuses  excluded  ;  and  yet  it  is  plain  this  never  could 
be  the  case,  even  were  their  schemes  as  perfect  as 
they  themselves  suppose,  while  men  continue  to  be 
fallible  and  frail,  unless  revision  and  correction  from 
time  to  time  took  place.  "  Things  change  for  the 
worse,"  says  Bacon,  "  of  themselves ;  if,  then,  they 
be  not,  by  design  and  counsel,  changed  for  the  bet- 
ter, what  end  will  there  be  of  the  evil  V    There  is 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      161 

on  record  a  good  reply  to  a  papist  by  a  Protestant, 
from  which  Protestants  themselves  might  learn 
more  than  they  do  ;  when  asked»  "  Where  was  your 
religion  before  the  time  of  Luther  ?"  he  asked  in 
return,  "Did  you  wash  your  face  this  morning?" 
**  Yes."  "  Then  where  was  your  face  before  it  was 
washed  ?"  This  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere 
witty  repartee,  but  a  just  description  of  the  case  ; 
and  it  would  have  been  well  had  it  always  been  re- 
membered, that  our  faces  do  not  require  merly  to 
be  washed  once  for  all^  but  every  day. 

Under  such  a  system  as  I  would  recommend,  you 
might  rectify  or  improve  whatever  might  need  it, 
without  any  more  difficulty  or  hazard  to  the  rev- 
enues of  the  church  than  the  universities,  for  in- 
stance, incur  when  they  alter,  from  time  to  time, 
their  statutes;  as  I  believe  the  university  of  Cam- 
bridge has  done  lately,  and  that  of  Oxford  some 
years  ago,  in  what  regards  the  course  of  academical 
studies,  and  the  terms  to  be  kept  preparatory  to  de- 
grees, without  any  jealousy  excited  in  the  members 
of  the  administration,  or  risk  of  the  college-endow- 
ments, and  without  any  idea  being  entertained  that 
government  had  anything  to  do  with  the  matter. 

You,  on  the  contrary,  are  even  in  a  greater  strait 
than  the  Church  of  Rome  ;  whose  pretence  to  in- 
fallibility only  compels  them  to  maintain,  in  theory, 
that  each  of  their  institutions  was  perfect  at  the 
time  when  it  was  established ;  whereas  you  have 
to  maintain,  in  practice^  the  unerring  rectitude  of 
your  own,  not  only  originally,  but  for  ever  ;  they 
o2 


162  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

may  say,  "this  is  no  longer  expedient ;"  but  your 
institutions  are  like  the  *'  law  of  the  Medes  and 
Persians,  which  altereth  not,"  even  after  two  or 
three  centuries ;  for  you  cannot  alter  anything 
without  the  co-operation  of  the  civil  power,  and 
with  it  you  are  too  wise  to  take  any  such  steps ; 
lest,  when  once  called  in,  it  should  do  more  than 
you  would  wish.  You  are  well  aware  that  those 
who  are  "  set  to  judge  in  things  pertaining  to  this 
world"  may  as  likely  as  not  be  "  those  who  are 
least  esteemed  in  the  church  ;"  persons  not  neces- 
sarily better  qualified  to  decide  upon  your  con- 
cerns than  many  a  parish  minister  is  to  be  a  min- 
ister of  state  ;  persons  who,  perhaps,  have  little  in- 
terest or  knowledge  about  anything  belonging  to 
the  church,  except  its  properly.  And  you  well 
know  that  it  is  dangerous  to  make  any  of  your  in- 
stitutions matter  of  public  legislative  discussion 
between  two  parties,  most  of  whom  usually  agree 
in  regarding  the  clergy  as  hired  servants  of  the 
state,  no  less  than  military  officers ;  and  who  only 
disagree  as  to  the  question,  whether  others  may  not 
be  found  to  do  the  work  cheaper,  that  they  may 
seize  upon  the  overplus.  Of  course  you  will  not 
understand  me  to  mean  that  any  one  is  necessarily 
the  worse  moral  man,  or  the  worse  Christian,  or 
the  worse  theologian,  for  being  a  politician  ;  but 
neither  is  he  necessarily  the  better.  If  any  one 
doubts  the  possibility  of  finding  in  eminent  states- 
men the  grossest  ignorance  of  the  doctrines  and  in- 
stitutions of  the  Church  of  England,  let  him  read 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      163 

the  speeches  in  parliament  on  the  Catholic  ques- 
tion. 

I  am  by  no  means  disposed  to  expect  that  any 
institution  conducted  by  fallible  men  will  ever  at- 
tain perfection  ;  but  as  long  as  you  are  continually 
labouring  to  approach  towards  it,  and  keep  the 
means  in  your  hands  of  rectifying  abuses  as  they 
arise,  and  of  introducing  such  improvements  as  are 
called  for,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  your  endeavours 
after  Christian  excellence  will  be  graciously  ac- 
cepted :  not  so  with  those  who  are  content  to  put 
it  out  of  their  own  power  to  apply  any  remedy, 
where  it  may  be  called  for,  in  the  affairs  of  a  soci- 
ety committed  by  its  Founder  to  their  care,  and  not 
to  that  of  the  temporal  authorities. 

But  here  I  must  remark  that  there  is  a  most 
important  distinction  relative  to  the  present  head, 
which  should  never  be  lost  sight  of  in  our  discus- 
sions reljiting  to  it ;  the  distinction,  I  mean,  be- 
tween the  two  questions,  what  institutions  are  on 
each  point  the  best ;  and,  what  is  the  authority  by 
which  they  should  be  established.  An  error  in  re- 
spect of  the  thing  enacted,  and  in  respect  of  the 
power  which  enacts  it,  are  each  to  be  avoided 
indeed  ;  but  they  are  errors  of  two  very  different 
kinds,  and  should  not  be  confounded  together.  If, 
for  instance,  any  free  and  independent  church,  sup- 
pose the  American  Episcopalian,  have  any  error  in 
doctrine  or  in  discipline  sanctioned  by  her  regular 
spiritual  authorities,  that  is  one  kind  of  fault;  if, 
again,  congress  or  parliament  should  enforce  even 


164  CONSEQUENCES    OP   THE 

true  doctrines  and  wise  regulations,  that  would  be 
another  kind  of  fault ;  and  it  is  this  last  which  con- 
stitutes the  encroachment  on  Christ's  kingdom. 
This  distinction,  so  generally  overlooked  in  the 
present  case,  is,  in  political  affairs,  clearly  perceived. 
If  an  injudicious  law  were  to  pass  both  houses  of 
parliament  in  Britain,  and  receive  the  royal  assent, 
though  this  law  ought  indeed  to  be  altered  or  ab- 
rogated, yet  till  then  it  would  be  in  all  respects 
valid,  and  the  enactment  of  it  would  not  be  a  vio- 
lation of  the  constitution  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
if  the  wisest  enactment  rested  only  on  the  authority 
of  a  royal  proclamation^  the  attempt  to  enforce  it 
as  a  law  would  be  strenuously  and  justly  resisted, 
as  unconstitutional.  And  equally  unconstitutional, 
with  reference  to  the  constitution  of  Christ's  spirit- 
ual kingdom,  are  all  enactments  relative  to  doctrine 
and  discipline ;  in  short,  to  spiritual  concerns  em- 
anating from  secular  authority.  With  regard  to 
these,  therefore,  we  ought  not  to  entertain  the  ques- 
tion relative  to  their  propriety  or  impropriety,  only 
in  the  case  of  those  which  rest  on  independent  spir- 
itual authority. 

It  is  evident,  that  for  bishops  to  have,  as  such, 
and  by  virtue  of  their  office,  a  seat  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  is  inconsistent  with  the  principles  which  I 
have  been  pointing  out ;  and  this,  which  many 
would  reckon  among  the  sacrifices  called  for  by 
the  adoption  of  the  system  I  would  recommend, 
I  should  reckon  among  its  advantages ;  since,  be- 
sides its  intrinsic  unlawfulness,  as  making  Christ's 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      165 

kingdom  a  secular  one,  it  answers  no  purpose  so 
effectually  as  that  of  giving  a  sanction  to  that  state 
interference  which  it  is  insufficient  effectually  to 
control.  Something  might  be  said,  perhaps,  on 
views  of  worldly  expediency,  if  the  bishops  had  a 
veto  on  all  questions  affecting  the  church  ;  but  as  it 
is,  their  power  is,  in  furthering  the  interests  of  the 
church,  inconsiderable ;  in  giving  a  colour  to  any 
encroachments  on  it,  but  too  great.  Indeed,  the 
situation  of  most  of  those,  both  temporal  and  spir- 
itual officers,  who  have  spiritual  control  over  your 
church  under  the  existing  system  of  alliance,  fre- 
quently reminds  me  of  Lord  Bacon's  remark  on 
witches,  in  respect  of  their  supposed  compact  with 
evil  spirits,  that  it  gives  them  abundant  power  to  do 
mischief,  but  none  at  all  to  do  good.  Many  a  man 
who  has  it  in  his  power  to  connive  at,  and  support, 
and  increase  abuses,  if  he  attempts  to  remedy  them 
finds  his  hands  tied  :  to  hold  up  the  doctrines,  and 
discipline,  and  authority  of  your  church  to  con- 
tempt, is  in  the  power  of  many;  but  who  is  able, 
if  disposed,  effectually  to  support  them? 

If,  however,  any  peer  of  parliament  thought  fit 
to  take  holy  orders,  and  the  officers  of  the  church 
to  ordain  him  minister  or  bishop,  this  would  be  no 
encroachment  on  the  rights  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
which  does  not  recognise  any  temporal  distinc- 
tions; in  it  "there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek; 
there  is  neither  bond  nor  free;"  and,  consequently, 
birth,  wealth,  temporal  office,  or  any  other  tem- 
poral distinction,  cannot,  in  themselves,  have  virtue 


166  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

either  to  admit  any  one  to  the  exercise  of  any 
spiritual  function,  or  to  exclude  him  from  it.  And 
it  is  equally,  in  itself^  allowable  for  the  king  to 
create  any  minister  or  bishop  a  peer,  if  he  thinks 
fit ;  and  so  it  is,  in  itself,  nothing  unlawful  for  any 
electors  to  choose  a  clergyman  as  their  represent- 
ative. I  have  already  noticed  the  preposterous 
anomaly  o{  excluding  from  the  House  of  Commons 
every  clergyman,  though  he  may  have  no  cure,  or 
a  very  small  one,  and  at  the  same  time  putting  a 
bishop,  who  must  have  enough  to  occupy  his  lime 
necessarily^  in  possession  of  a  seat  in  the  House  of 
Peers.  Whether  it  would  be  in  any  case  com- 
patible with  the  duties  of  a  clergyman  to  sit,  sup- 
posing him  otherwise  entitled,  in  either  house,  is  a 
question  which  the  church  ought  to  decide ;  it  is 
her  concern.  In  the  legislature  it  is  most  unjust 
either  to  appoint  or  exclude  any  one,  as  a  clergy- 
man ;  they  having,  in  reason  and  equity,  no  more 
concern  with  his  ordination  than  with  his  degree 
in  arts.  But  when  any  one's  ecclesiastical  dignity 
gives  him  civil  power,  or,  vice  versdy  his  civil  office 
gives  him  ecclesiastical,  this  is,  so  far,  making 
Christ's  kingdom  a  kingdom  of  this  world. 

The  church,  as  a  church,  i.  e.,  as  a  spiritual  com- 
munity, has  no  concern  with  secular  government ; 
nor  ought  even  to  be  represented  in  parliament. 
It  has  property  indeed ;  and  that  being  a  tempo- 
rality, may  very  properly  be  represented  ;  but  not 
through  the  means  of  bishops,  or  of  any  Christian 
officers,  as  such.    It  is  thus  that  the  universities 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      167 

are,  very  suitably,  represented  in  parliannent ;  not 
as  places  of  learning,  but  as  corporations  possess- 
ing property ;  and  accordingly  it  is  enacted,  not 
that  the  professors,  or  the  rector  or  chancellor, 
should,  in  those  capacities,  have  seats  in  the  house, 
but  that  all  the  students,  or  whatever  they  may  be 
who  have  a  share  in  the  joint-property,  should 
elect  whom  they  think  fit  to  represent  that  prop- 
erty. They  may  elect  as  menaber  one  of  the  pro- 
fessors, if  they  think  him  a  fit  person  ;  but  it  would 
be  absurd  to  make  the  Greek  or  the  Latin  profes- 
sor (especially  if  appointed  by  the  crown),  by  vir- 
tue of  his  office,  the  representative  ;  since  the  most 
learned  man,  and  the  best  qualified  to  deliver  lec- 
tures, may  happen  not  to  be  the  best  qualified  for 
a  place  in  the  legislature. 

There  is  nothing  improper,  therefore,  in  allow- 
ing holders  of  livings,  whether  lay  or  clerical,  to 
be  accounted  freeholders,  since  they  vote  in  right 
of  the  property  they  possess ;  their  stake  in  the 
country,  whether  they  are  lay  impropriators  or 
ofliiciating  ministers ;  not  by  virtue  of  ordination* 
The  mode,  however,  in  which  they  vote,  scattered 
thinly  as  they  are  through  the  country,  reduces 
their  influence  to  little  or  nothing ;  and  as  tithes 
and  glebe  (under  which  I  include  all  such  lands  as, 
having  been  church  property,  are  tithe-free)  con- 
stitute a  description  of  properly  in  many  respects 
distinct,  it  would,  perhaps,  be  more  fair  that  it 
should  be  distinctly  represented.  If,  instead  of 
members  being  returned  by  the  universities,  each 


168  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

graduate  in  any  of  them  were  entitled  to  vote  as  a 
freeholder  in  the  county  of  which  he  was  a  na- 
tive or  a  resident,  or  in  which  his  university  holds 
property,  the  unwersity  interests  would  be  but  ill 
represented  ;  and  the  influence  which  those  bodies 
have,  and  ought  to  have,  would  be  frittered  away. 
I  think,  therefore,  that  the  fairest  representation  of 
church  property  would  be,  for  the  holders  of  it, 
clerical  and  lay,  to  elect  in  each  diocess,  or  other 
appointed  district,  one  or  two  representatives  of 
the  church  property  within  that  district. 

I  recollect  a  suggestion  in  an  essay  on  the  tithe 
system,*  which  struck  me  as  very  judicious ;  that 
these  holders  of  ecclesiastical  property  in  each  dis- 
trict should  be  impowered  also  to  appoint,  in  each, 
a  committee,  chapter,  college,  or  whatever  else  it 
might  be  called,  which  should  receive  a  legal  in- 
corporation, and  be  accounted,  as  a  body,  the  owner 
of  that  collective  property,  or  of  all  that  the  holders 
of  it  within  that  district  might  choose  to  put  into 
their  hands ;  they  distributing  to  each  his  propor- 
tionate share  of  the  total  revenue,  as  colleges  and 
chapters  do  to  their  fellows,  canons,  &c.  The  ob- 
ject proposed  by  this  arrangement  was  to  do  away, 
which  I  think  would  be  the  result,  most  of  the  in- 
conveniences of  tithes,  which,  as  it  is,  are  a  per- 
petual source  of  bickering  between  the  minister 
and  his  parishioners ;  and  to  remove  most  of  the 
obstacles  now  existing  to  their  commutation  for 

*  Essay  on  the  Tithe  System.     Hatchard,  London ;  and  Parker, 
Oxford,  first  published  in  No.  16,  British  Review. 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      169 

lands.  The  supreme  head  on  earth  of  each  branch 
of  Christ's  church  should  evidently  be  some  spir- 
itual  officer  or  body.  Whether  the  governor  of  the 
English  church  were  the  primate  or  the  convoca- 
tion, or  both  conjointly,  or  any  other  man  or  body 
of  men  holding  ecc/esias^ica/authority,  not  attached 
to  any  civil  office,  nor  in  the  gift  of  any  civil  gov- 
ernor, in  either  case  the  nonsecular  character  of 
Christ's  kingdom  would  be  preserved.  The  king, 
in  conjunction  with  the  other  branches  of  the  legis- 
lature, ought  to  have  a  distinctly  defined  iemporai 
authority  over  every  one  of  his  subjects,  of  what- 
ever persuasion ;  and,  of  consequence,  over  the 
ministers  and  all  other  members,  both  of  the  Church- 
of  England  and  of  every  other  religious  community^ 
Christian,  Jewish,  or  pagan,  within  his  dominions: 
but  neither  he  nor  any  other  civil  power  should 
interfere  with  articles  of  faith,  liturgy,  church  dis- 
cipline, or  any  other  spiritual  matters.  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  has  no  king  but  Christ ;  and  he 
delegated  his  authority  to  apostles,  and,  through- 
them,  to  bishops  and  presbyters  ;  not  to  any  secular 
magistrates.  These,  therefore,  ought  not,  by  virtue 
of  their  civil  offices,  to  claim  the  appointment  to 
any  offices  in  the  church.  The  magistrate  may^ 
however,  very  fairly  exercise  patronage  in  respect 
of  temporalities ;  selecting,  out  of  those  already  or- 
dained by  the  church,  whom  he  will  for  appoint- 
ment to  certain  endowments.  He  may  rightfully 
say — **  You  have  consecrated  this  man  a  minister, 
I  choose  to  appoint  him  to  such  and  such  a  bene- 
p 


170  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

fice."  That  is  no  encroachment  on  the  rights  of 
the  church.  But  it  would  be  so  were  he  to  ordain 
(or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  compel  others  to  or- 
dain) any  particular  person  a  priest  or  a  bishop  ; 
though  one  who  is  already  a  bishop  he  may  insti- 
tute to  a  particular  see.  This  translation,  however, 
of  bishops  from  one  see  to  another,  though  no  en- 
croachment on  the  spiritual  rights  of  the  church,  I 
hold  to  be  so  highly  inexpedient^  that  I  would  have 
the  church  prohibit  bishops  from  accepting  such 
translation.  If,  however,  the  church  thought  fit  to 
ordain  many  more  bishops  than  you  now  have  to 
act  as  assistants  (of  which  there  is  very  great  need) 
to  the  bishop  of  each  diocess,  it  would  be  very  al- 
lowable for  the  magistrate  to  appoint  one  of  these, 
whichever  he  would,  to  any  vacant  see,  eiiher  with 
or  without  the  form  of  an  election  or  recommenda^ 
tion;  but  no  royal  recommendation  should  be  al- 
lowed to  determine  who  should  he  ordained  bishop, 
unless  you  come  to  the  conclusion,  and  openly  pro- 
claim it,  that  a  bishop  has  x\o  spiritual  office  distinct 
from  that  of  the  presbyter,  and,  consequently,  that 
the  ordination  of  a  bishop  is  a  nullity.  Let  a  man 
be  selected  for  the  office  of  bishop,  either  by  the 
dean  and  chapter,  or  by  the  other  bishops,  or  by 
the  clergy  of  the  diocess,  or  by  all  the  members 
©f  the  church,  lay  and  clerical,  or,  in  short,  in  any 
way  by  the  churchy  as  a  church.  All  these  modes 
cannot  be  equally  expedient;  but  what  I  mean  to 
point  out  is,  that  none  of  them  would  be  at  va- 
riance with  the  spiritual  character  of  Christ's  king- 
dom. 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      171 

A  church  constituted  on  these  principles  would 
combine  the  advantages  at  present  possessed  sep- 
arately by  your  church  and  by  sectaries.  A  candid 
and  intelligent  by-stander  can  scarcely  fail,  I  think, 
to  remark,  in  contemplating  the  religious  condition 
of  your  country,  that  you  and  the  dissenters  pos- 
sess each  some  advantages  over  the  other.  The 
Church  of  England  has,  generally  speaking,  a  more 
learned  and  respectable  body  of  clergy,  from  their 
superior  opportunities  of  obtaining  a  good  educa- 
tion ;  from  their  not  being  dependant  on  wages 
paid  them  at  the  will  of  their  congregations,  and 
from  other  causes.  It  has  also  a  sounder  and  a 
more  permanent  system  of  doctrines :  by  "  more 
permanent"  I  mean,  that,  instead  of  trusting  every- 
thing to  the  extemporary  effusions  of  the  minister 
(the  grand  source  of  unlimited  fluctuations  in  reli- 
gion), you  have  an  excellent  compendium  of  divinity 
imbodied  in  your  liturgy  ;  I  do  not  mean  that  it  is 
any  advantage  to  have  a  system  that  is  practically 
unalterable  for  ever.  A  well-built  house  is  much 
preferable  to  a  temporary  booth  ;  but  it  is  no  ad- 
vantage to  a  house  that  it  should  be  incapable  of 
receiving  repairs.  The  dissenters,  on  the  other 
hand,  have  generally  a  greater  degree  of  spirit 
and  energy  in  their  communities  ;  not  merely  from 
being  the  ex-parly,  but  also  from  feeling  that  what- 
ever is  done  in  respect  of  their  religious  affairs  is 
done  by  themselves,  as  a  spiritual  body,  not  by  an 
extraneous  authority  ;  and  from  the  exercise  of  a 
mutual  control,  by  their  being  able,  in  the  last  re- 


172  CONSEQUENCES   OF   THE 

sort,  to  disown  any  member  who  might  prove  an 
incumbrance  to  their  society.  Your  church,  in 
shorU  may  be  compared  to  a  human  body,  more 
perfect  as  to  the  skeleton,  and  more  beautifully  con- 
structed ;  but  which,  from  languor  of  circulation, 
is  become  somewhat  feeble  in  muscle — incapable 
of  throwing  off  peccant  humours — and  ill  qualified 
for  energizing  with  vigour,  when  compared  with  a 
frame  less  perfectly  compacted,  but  possessing  a 
more  lively  circulation  and  a  more  elastic  activity. 
Both  these  classes  of  advantages  then,  freed  from 
their  accompanying  deficiencies,  would  be  pos- 
sessed by  your  church  were  it  but  conformed  to 
the  principles  I  have  been  laying  down. 

Another  advantage,  which  1  cannot  indeed  call 
a  certain,  but  which  I  cannot  help  thinking  a  prob- 
able result,  is  the  advancement  of  Protestantism 
both  in  your  own  and  in  popish  countries.  Among 
other  obstacles  to  its  progress,  one,  I  have  no  doubt, 
is  the  jealousy  felt  by  the  ministers  and  other  zeal- 
ous members  of  the  Romish  communion,  of  the 
sacrilegious  power  (as  they  consider  it)  exercised 
by  civil  magistrates  in  Protestant  countries  over 
their  respective  churches.  They  cannot  bear  the 
idea  of  surrendering  the  church  into  the  hands  of 
the  secular  power.  Many  of  them  undoubtedly 
perceive  great  part  of  the  errors  of  their  own 
church ;  and  some  of  them  probably  suspect  the 
validity  of  the  pope's  claim  to  universal  suprcm'dcy ; 
but  still,  they  would  rather  submit  to  that,  even 
though  an  usurping  spiritual  power,  than  to  that 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      173 

secular  supremacy  which  ihoy  justly  apprehend 
would  be  the  only  alternative.  Remove  this  ap- 
prehension by  establishing  the  spiritual  in(|epend- 
ence  of  the  church,  and  allowing  due  veneration 
for  her  Divine  authority, and  you  will  have  removed 
at  least  one  great  obstacle  (I  think  the  principal 
one)  to  the  conversion  of  the  papist.  As  it  is,  one 
of  their  chief  arguments  is  drawn  from  the  secular 
character  of  your  church-government.  If  the 
church  in  each  country,  they  tell  you,  must  needs 
have  a  supreme  head  superior  to  its  own  bishops 
and  archbishops,  it  is  better  that  that  head  should 
be  the  pope,  who  at  least  is  an  ecclesiastical  offi- 
cer, than  a  king  or  a  burgomaster. 

The  only  disadvantage,  as  some  would  account 
it,  to  counterbalance  the  benefits  of  the  proposed 
change,  would  be  one  which /should  reckon  among 
its  advantages,  viz.,  the  loss,  if  it  might  be  so  called, 
of  many  insincere,  nominal  members  of  your  church, 
who  have  no  real  attachment  to  the  society,  no 
care  for  the  objects  it  proposes,  and  whose  con- 
duct tends  neither  to  its  credit  nor  to  the  support 
of  its  true  interests.  And  such  a  loss  would  be  a 
gain  similar  to  what  the  mighty  host  of  Xerxes 
would  have  experienced  had  he  dismissed  his  use- 
less multitude  of  camp-followers,  and  retained  only 
his  efficient  soldiers. 

The  slight  and  hasty  sketch  I  have  given  of  the 

advantages  which  might  be  expected  to  accrue  to 

your  church  from  a  strict  compliance  with  the  spirit 

of  its  Founder's  precepts,  may  be  sufficient,  I  think, 

p2 


174  CONSEQUENCES    OF    THE 

to  convince  any  attentive  and  candid  reasoner  that 
Christ  and  his  apostles  knew  better  what  would 
conduce  to  the  true  interests  of  a  spiritual  kingdom 
than  any  of  those  ingenious  but  worldly  politicians, 
who  have  always  been  endeavouring  to  improve 
upon  the  system  they  laid  down.  And  this  affords 
a  strong  presumption  of  the  superhuman  wisdom 
displayed  by  the  first  promulgators  of  the  gospel. 

Should  you  adopt  the  main  part  of  the  principles 
I  have  laid  down,  and  communicate  them  to  any  of 
the  members  of  your  church,  you  would  find  many, 
I  am  persuaded,  who  would  in  most  points  agree 
with  you,  but  would  (most  of  them)  express  their 
fears,  that  what  was  good  in  theory  could  not  be 
realized  in  practice.  They  would  tell  you  that  it 
would  raise  clamour,  and  would  be  attended  with 
various  dangers,  to  attempt  any  change  in  the  ex- 
isting system  ;  though  they  would  acknowledge, 
that  had  things  from  the  first  been  contrived  differ- 
ently, it  would  have  been  far  better ;  but  now, 
none  but  the  most  sanguine  and  wild  enthusiast, 
they  would  say,  can  fail  to  perceive  the  universal 
confusion  and  ruin  which  would  ensue  from  any  at- 
tempt at  a  reform.  Without  stating  precisely  the 
process  by  which  that  ruin  would  take  place  (for 
the  timorous  can  seldom  bring  themselves  to  take 
a  very  deliberate,  and  clear,  and  distinct  view  of  the 
objects  of  their  alarm),  they  would  urge,  generally, 
that  objections  would  be  raised ;  that  statesmen 
would  be  alarmed  ;  that  churchmen  would  be  di- 
vided ;  that  the  activity  of  sectaries  would  be 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      175 

aroused,  with  a  whole  train  of  those  undefined 
terrors  which  appal  the  imagination  of  the  faint- 
hearted, and  which  they  dress  up  in  the  specious 
garb  of  politic  foresight.  Some  of  these  persons, 
perhaps,  may  be  of  the  number  of  those  who  (like 
Paley)  *'  cannot  afford  to  keep  a  conscience  ;"  who 
have  prospects  in  the  church  or  in  the  state  which 
they  are  afraid  of  endangering  by  incurring  the 
suspicion  of  being  advocates  of  reform  :  "  1  thought 
to  promote  thee  to  great  honour  ;  but,  lo,  the  Lord 
hath  kept  thee  back  from  honour."  But  others, 
probably,  would  be  not  self-interested,  but  merely 
timid ;  fearful  of  some  undefined  danger  to  the 
church,  and  fearful  of  themselves  incurring  cen- 
sure, obloquy,  ridicule,  violent  opposition,  and  per- 
secution ;  and  would  thus  be  withheld,  by  a  general, 
indistinct  dread  of  ill  consequences,  from  practi- 
cally assenting  to  what  their  judgment  might  ap- 
prove. I  would  ask  such  persons,  Are  these  prin- 
ciples, or  are  they  not,  such  as  you  are  clearly 
hound,  in  duty  to  your  Master,  to  advocate  and  to 
act  upon,  as  you  shall  answer  before  him  at  the 
last  day  ?  You  should  decide  this  question  first, 
before  you  even  take  into  consideration  the  calcu- 
lation of  consequences,  upon  views  of  human  expe- 
diency, in  a  case  where  you  have  express  Divine 
injunctions.  If  you  decide  this  question  in  the  af- 
firmative, and  yet  refuse  to  act  on  your  conviction, 
is  it  not  that  you  would  be  willing  to  follow  your 
Master,  provided  you  were  but  not  required  to 
**  take  up  your  cross  and  follow  him  ?**     Is  not 


176  CONSEQUENCES    OF   THE 

your  fear  of  censure,  and  opposition,  and  ridicule 
for  obedience  to  his  will,  "  being  ashanned  of  him 
and  of  his  words  ?'*  And  is  it  not,  consequently,  to 
incur  the  risk  of  his  being  ashanned  of  you  ?  The 
very  notion  of  Christian  faiih  excludes  that  of  a 
distrust  of  Christ's  power  to  support  and  prosper 
the  endeavours  of  those  who  are  ready  to  "  leave 
all  and  follow  him."  1  would  say  to  one  who 
dreaded  lest  he  should  sink  amid  the  troubled 
waves  of  civil  or  religious  contests,  while  walking 
over  their  surface  to  meet  his  Master  who  had 
called  him,  "  Oh  thou  of  little  faith,  wherefore  dost 
thou  doubt  ?'*  Thou  wilt  indeed  sink,  if  thou  dost 
not  rely  firmly  on  his  word  to  support  thee  !  Take 
hold  of  Jesus,  if  thou  art  fearful,  and  he  will  bear 
thee  up. 

But  what,  after  all,  are  the  mighty  dangers  so 
much  apprehended  ?  The  state,  as  we  have  seen, 
would  lose  nothing,  and  would  gain  much,  in  re- 
spect of  the  support  derived  from  the  loyalty  of 
Christians,  were  civil  interference  in  religious  mat- 
ters withdrawn.  The  security  of  the  church  prop- 
erty, again,  would  not  be  endangered,  as  long  as 
the  principles  of  equity  and  good  government  should 
maintain  their  ground  ;  and  on  no  other  principles 
can  that,  or  any  other  property,  be  secure,  even 
now.  But  it  is  feared,  perhaps,  that  when  the 
church  should  exercise  primitive  discipline,  excom- 
municating, as  St.  Paul  enjoins,  scandalous  sin- 
ners, obstinate  heretics,  or  pertinacious  noncom- 
municants  (by  excom.municating  I  mean  excluding 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      177 

them  from  all  intercourse  in  things  pertaining  to 
religion^  not  from  receiving  mere  charitable  of- 
fices, nor  from  the  common  intercourse  of  buying 
and  selling,  &c.,  which  is  allowable  between  a 
Christian  and  "a  heathen  man  or  a  publican"); 
and  when  no  fresh  members  should  be  admitted  by 
baptism  (except  adults),  without  good  and  approved 
sureties  for  their  being  Christianly  brought  up ;  it 
may  be  feared,  I  say,  that,  were  all  this  done,  a 
mighty  defalcation  in  the  numbers  of  your  church 
would  take  place.  Those,  as  I  have  already  ob- 
served, who  were  not  sincerely  religious,  nor  loyal 
subjects  of  Christ's  kingdom,  would  "  go  back,  and 
walk  no  more  with  him :"  and  in  God's  name  let 
them  go  1  "  Fear  not,  little  flock  !"  **  The  sword 
of  the  Lord  and  of  Gideon"  accomplished,  with 
three  hundred  men,  a  victory,  of  which  he  would 
have  failed  had  he  scrupled  to  thin  his  host  by  send- 
ing back  those  whose  hearts  failed  them.  The  field 
is  thinned,  indeed,  by  the  removal  of  the  tares  ;  but 
the  wheat  thrives  the  better  without  them ;  they 
may  not,  indeed,  be  rooted  up  by  force,  before  the 
harvest;  but  if  they  will  go  away  of  themselves, 
you  will  gain  in  purity  much  more  than  you  lose 
in  quantity. 

What,  then,  you  may  say,  are  we  called  upon 
to  do  ?  To  separate  from  the  Church  of  England  ? 
Surely  not :  but  to  strive,  in  the  first  instance  at 
least,  and  to  strive  earnestly  and  steadily,  to  sepa- 
rate the  church  from  the  every   way  pernicious 


178  CONSEQUENCES    OF   THE 

alliance  with  the  state.  I  abhor  schism  ;  I  would 
not  urge  you  to  be  one  of  those  who  cause  divis- 
ions in  the  church ;  but  it  is  no  schism  to  divide 
the  spiritual  kingdom  of  Christ  from  the  secular 
government,  with  which  it  has  no  natural,  and 
can  have  no  lawful  connexion.  As  I  formerly  re- 
marked to  you,  he  who  thinks  his  country  en- 
thralled by  an  unfair  alliance  with  some  foreign 
state,  would  be  a  rebel,  should  he  at  once  throw 
off  his  allegiance,  without,  at  least,  having  first 
done  his  very  utmost  to  restore  her  to  independ- 
ence. So,  likewise,  does  he  incur  the  guilt  of 
schism  who,  when  his  church  is  involved  in  corre- 
sponding difficulties,  at  once  renounces  her,  with- 
out having  ascertained,  by  using  the  most  earnest 
and  strenuous  endeavours,  that  the  case  is  en- 
tirely hopeless.  The  sectaries  certainly  deserve 
much  blame  for  too  hastily  seceding ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  must  be  confessed  that  your  church 
has  been  too  backward  in  protesting. 

Let  churchmen  then,  not  the  clergy  only,  but 
all  members  of  your  church  who  understand  and 
who  would  promote  her  best  interests,  protest  and 
petition,  respectfully  and  modestly,  but  firmly  and 
perseveringly,  against  the  profanation  of  Christ's 
kingdom  by  that  double  usurpation,  the  interfe- 
rence of  the  church  in  temporals,  and  of  the  state 
in  spirituals.  The  language  of  their  petitions  need 
not  be  offensive  ;  and  the  matter  of  them  would 
be  in  the  highest  degree  reasonable.     They  might 


EMANCIPATION  OF  THE  CHURCH.      179 

say,  in  substance :  "  We  are  convinced  that  Christ's 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world ;  that,  consequently, 
all  interference  of  the  church  in  civil,  or  of  the  tem- 
poral power  in  religious  concerns,  is  clearly  at 
variance  with  our  Lord's  design,  and  what  we 
cannot  in  conscience  acquiesce  in  ;  we  deprecate 
all  imputation  of  disloyalty;  we  profess  that  de- 
voted and  conscientious  submission  to  the  civil 
power,  in  all  civil  concerns,  which  was  taught  and 
practised  by  the  apostles ;  we  are  sincere  friends 
both  to  the  church  and  to  the  state,  though  not  to 
the  unnatural  and  unhallowed  union  between  them  ; 
the  advantages  to  the  government  which  states- 
men have  proposed  from  the  subjection  of  the 
church  to  the  state,  we  are  convinced,  and  are 
prepared  to  prove  decisively,  would  be  much  more 
easily  and  effectually  secured  if  all  interference  of 
this  kind  were  withdrawn  ;  we  ask  no  protection 
or  support  for  the  church  from  the  government, 
except  the  defence  of  individuals  from  insult  and 
persecution,  and  that  security  of  property  which 
is  enjoyed  by  all  hospitals,  free-schools,  parishes, 
and  other  such  bodies  ;  we  feel  persuaded,  and  are 
ready  to  maintain,  that  under  such  a  system  gov- 
ernment" would  lose  nothing  except  odium  and 
trouble,  and  would  be  a  great  gainer  in  point  of 
influence,  security,  and  popularity ;  we  doubt  not 
the  good  intentions  of  the  civil  rulers  towards  the 
cause  of  religion,  and  in  their  capacity  of  Chris^ 
iians  we  invite  their  co-operation ;  but,  in  that  of 


180  EMANCIPATION    OF    THE    CHimCH. 

rulers^  they  may  do  the  church  much  harm,  and 
can  do  it  no  good ;  as  citizens,  therefore,  we  ask 
of  the  government  only  that  protection  which  it  i» 
bound  to  extend  to  all  classes ;  as  a  church,  we 
ask  nothing  of  it  but  to  let  us  alone." 


THE    END. 


